Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/1] gcc-sanitizers: Fix libtool library files

Hi Ross, Is it recommended practice to remove libtool .la files for oe-core when some issue pops? If yes, I would withdraw and prepare a new patch that complies with the practice. Thanks, Yuanjie On 09/21/2016 05:01 PM, Burton, Ross wrote: On 21 September 2016 at 02:46, Yuanjie Huang

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/1] gcc-sanitizers: Fix libtool library files

On 21 September 2016 at 02:46, Yuanjie Huang wrote: > We have some user making use of these libraries directly, otherwise, cross > gcc can link these sanitizer libraries with just -fsantizer flag without > problem. Without .la files, his flow can not be libtoolized.

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/1] gcc-sanitizers: Fix libtool library files

Thanks, commit message revised. Best, Yuanjie On 09/20/2016 09:35 PM, Burton, Ross wrote: On 20 September 2016 at 10:19, Yuanjie Huang > wrote: Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [embedded specific] (LOCAL REV; NOT

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/1] gcc-sanitizers: Fix libtool library files

On 09/21/2016 04:48 AM, Khem Raj wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 2:19 AM, Yuanjie Huang wrote: From: Yuanjie Huang Since libtool sysroot is not set when compiling sanitizers, the libtool does no prefix the dependency path correctly.

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/1] gcc-sanitizers: Fix libtool library files

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 2:19 AM, Yuanjie Huang wrote: > From: Yuanjie Huang > > Since libtool sysroot is not set when compiling sanitizers, the libtool > does no prefix the dependency path correctly. Fix it, so that programs > can link to

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/1] gcc-sanitizers: Fix libtool library files

On 20 September 2016 at 10:19, Yuanjie Huang wrote: > Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [embedded specific] > (LOCAL REV; NOT UPSTREAM) -- sent to oe-core on 2016-09-20 > You don't need upstream-status tags in commit messages, only patches that the recipe is applying.