On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:56:01AM -0800, Matt Turner wrote: > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:34 AM, Thierry Reding > <thierry.red...@avionic-design.de> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 08:29:04PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:07:03AM -0800, Matt Turner wrote: > >> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Thierry Reding > >> > <thierry.red...@avionic-design.de> wrote: > >> > > Override the cross_compiling and ac_tool_prefix variables by > >> > > reassigning > >> > > to them instead of redefining the macros. Redefining them will actually > >> > > cause the variable names to be replaced instead of their content. > >> > > > >> > > Furthermore push the definition of CPPFLAGS before running the checks > >> > > for the build tools to avoid the host CPPFLAGS from leaking into the > >> > > build CPPFLAGS. > >> > > > >> > > While at it drop the redefinition of AC_TRY_COMPILER which hasn't been > >> > > used since autoconf 2.50 and make sure that all definitions are > >> > > properly > >> > > popped when done (LDFLAGS, ac_cv_prog_CPP, ac_cv_prog_CXXCPP). > >> > > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <thierry.red...@avionic-design.de> > >> > > --- > >> > > m4/ax_prog_cc_for_build.m4 | 37 +++++++++++-------------------------- > >> > > m4/ax_prog_cxx_for_build.m4 | 38 > >> > > ++++++++++++-------------------------- > >> > > 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-) > >> [...] > >> > Are these changes from upstream? I really have concerns about making > >> > non-trivial changes to these files. > >> > >> No, they're not. I do plan to send these changes upstream, but quite > >> honestly I'm not sure that they'll be accepted given that I have none of > >> the copyright assigment forms filled with the FSF. Looking at the > >> autoconf-archive website doesn't actually say anything about copyright > >> assignment, but as the project is hosted on GNU I'm a bit sceptical. > >> Also note that AX_PROG_CXX_FOR_BUILD doesn't actually exist upstream. I > >> essentially copied it from AX_PROG_CC_FOR_BUILD. > >> > >> I'm actually a bit confused as to why the original cross-compilation > >> patches that I sent in worked at all (and I'm sure they did because I > >> tested them fairly extensively at the time), but looking at configure > >> as generated with the macros as they are in the repository right now, > >> things are severely broken. Running the configure script shows a bunch > >> of > >> > >> checking for 2... no > >> > >> messages, and cross-compiling doesn't actually succeed. With the above > >> patches I've verified that Mesa cross-builds from x86_64 to ARM. > >> > >> Still, if you have any doubts I can try feeding those changes upstream > >> and see what comes of it. If that happens we can easily sync the changes > >> back by copying the files. > > > > For reference, I've submitted patches for both macros upstream. They are > > available here: > > > > http://savannah.gnu.org/patch/index.php?7890 > > http://savannah.gnu.org/patch/index.php?7891 > > > > Thierry > > Okay, looks like you've done your part. I just pushed this patch. Thanks!
Upstream doesn't seem very responsive, unfortunately. I haven't heard back in over three weeks. Thanks a lot for merging. Thierry
pgpzxPywWKnYv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev