From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from idris.smile.fr (idris.smile.fr [91.216.209.19]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEC19601B8 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:40:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by idris.smile.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A77971EE0AA8; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:40:35 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at smile.fr Received: from idris.smile.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bluemind-mta.prod.vitry.intranet [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TNsUr7KRK06a; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:40:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.5.19.152] (bob75-2-81-56-46-209.fbx.proxad.net [81.56.46.209]) by idris.smile.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6383B1EE0AA7; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:40:35 +0200 (CEST) To: "Burton, Ross" References: <9bf820ce898dc5e0127b0108efb64f7095887732.1471936926.git-series.jeremy.rosen@smile.fr> <9301FDF2-F2EB-414C-A671-9B87ED5F0D3C@gmail.com> <0c795b84-5305-072b-4540-8a3e3049d5b2@smile.fr> <17d95410-d50f-80f6-665c-35405a72e11a@smile.fr> From: =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsOpbXkgUm9zZW4=?= Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:40:34 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/45.0 Icedove/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Cc: OE-core Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] [autotools] export CCLD_FOR_BUILD X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:40:36 -0000 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------A8743B07C36A8A98AA91C1A3" --------------A8743B07C36A8A98AA91C1A3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 24/08/2016 21:56, Burton, Ross wrote: > > On 24 August 2016 at 12:28, Jérémy Rosen > wrote: > > ok, so CC_FOR_BUILD seems to be a common convention and > CCLD_FOR_BUILD seems only used by our patch for pcre. Fixing it to > use CC_FOR_BUILD for linking is trivial > > but the patch is marked as submitted upstream, so Fahad... what is > the status ? how can we do that ? > > I can also set CCLD_FOR_BUILD in ther .bb file instead of > autotools.bbclass, that's trivial... the question is whether we > should fix the patch or not... > > > CC_FOR_BUILD and CPP_FOR_BUILD are de facto standards by virtue of > being part of autoconf-archive: > https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf-archive/ax_prog_cc_for_build.html > > Looking at the patch wouldn't it be possible to avoid the entire .c -> > .o -> binary process and just go from .c -> binary via CC_FOR_BUILD? Probably, but again the patch has been pushed upstream by someone else and I need to contact that person first to see how to handle it. I can avoid that by defining CCLD_FOR_BUILD in the recipe, but since I need to wait for glibc for v2 anyway, I'm not in a rush... if I have no news, I'll do that for V2 Regards Jeremy > > Ross --------------A8743B07C36A8A98AA91C1A3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit



On 24/08/2016 21:56, Burton, Ross wrote:

On 24 August 2016 at 12:28, Jérémy Rosen <jeremy.rosen@smile.fr> wrote:
ok, so CC_FOR_BUILD seems to be a common convention and CCLD_FOR_BUILD seems only used by our patch for pcre. Fixing it to use CC_FOR_BUILD for linking is trivial

but the patch is marked as submitted upstream, so Fahad... what is the status ? how can we do that ?

I can also set CCLD_FOR_BUILD in ther .bb file instead of autotools.bbclass, that's trivial... the question is whether we should fix the patch or not...

CC_FOR_BUILD and CPP_FOR_BUILD are de facto standards by virtue of being part of autoconf-archive: https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf-archive/ax_prog_cc_for_build.html
 
Looking at the patch wouldn't it be possible to avoid the entire .c -> .o -> binary process and just go from .c -> binary via CC_FOR_BUILD?
Probably, but again the patch has been pushed upstream by someone else and I need to contact that person first to see how to handle it.

I can avoid that by defining CCLD_FOR_BUILD in the recipe, but since I need to wait for glibc for v2 anyway, I'm not in a rush...

if I have no news, I'll do that for V2


Regards
Jeremy

Ross

--------------A8743B07C36A8A98AA91C1A3--