On 2/25/19 12:24 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:50:40AM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: >> Hmm, cross compiling is indeed a bear. My original version of this was to >> have base/gcc install a special 'freebsd-gcc.mk' toolchain file to >> /usr/share/toolchains and modify Makefile.inc1 to use this as the default >> CROSS_TOOLCHAIN if present. I mostly didn't like this because it would be >> a single file that so you can't set separate policy if, for example, some >> arch or install only wanted base/binutils and not base/gcc. On the other >> hand, it had the advantage that setting an explicit CROSS_TOOLCHAIN when you >> are cross compiling would work correctly. >> >> Perhaps I can rework this to use two files in /usr/share/toolchains and have >> Makefile.inc1 explicitly include any files in that directory if >> CROSS_TOOLCHAIN isn't set? > > I think I like that option best. > > Another way to deal with the two-files issue would be to have a > base/toolchain metaport with options that installs the consolidated file > you want. That mirrors (somewhat) the setup in devel/*xtoolchain*, but > I'm not convinced it won't just lead to confusion.
I've rebased and repushed the 'base_gcc' branch again to follow this approach. Rather than using a glob, it just hardcodes the two possible files. I did have to make one change which is that the helper files have to use 'export' for the WITH/WITHOUT variables or they weren't being honored in child makes. However, this approach works even for 'make buildenv' in my testing. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
