On 5 May 2015 at 16:29, Antti Kantee <[email protected]> wrote: > On 05/05/15 15:13, Martin Lucina wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, 05.05.2015 at 11:24, Antti Kantee wrote: >>> >>> I think I suggested not introducing defines unless they are >>> absolutely necessary, or any other similar identifiers for that >>> matter. Which are, in fact, the rumprun<platform> falls under. I >>> have a vague memory that Martin justified <platform> in the >>> toolchain name, but I'm not 100% if my memory serves me right. >> >> >> The <platform> needs to be in the toolchain name so that the *user* can >> distinguish the different toolchains, and also so that they can be >> installed side by side in the same directory in $PATH. > > > Is that a useful requirement? I'm questioning its validity especially since > ... > >>>> eg there is no such thing as an arm baremetal platform, >>>> there is one for pretty much every SoC thats ported to. >>> >>> >>> Good point. >> >> >> I'm not sure what to do about that :-( >> >> An idea: we invent some explicit flag that would be passed to our -gcc, >> -g++ or -ld wrapper and mean "build for this particular board". > > > ... the proposal doesn't satisfy it. > > I'm a fan of the ". xcompile-platform.sh" approach, which sets the right > paths, CC, PS1, etc. > > In that namespace we could choose $platform freely without breaking build > suites.
Its the standard setup eg if you want your stuff to be installed in packages in a Linux distro. But I am not entirely convinced that we want to optimise for that use case right now. Justin
