On 24/08/2016 21:56, Burton, Ross wrote:
On 24 August 2016 at 12:28, Jérémy Rosen <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
