On 26/10/2020 17.15, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 26/10/20 16:33, Joelle van Dyne wrote:
>> Just to be clear, you're in favor of removing the
>> --enable-cross-compile option? I can do that if others agree but I'm
>> not sure what the downside of adding this extra option is?
>
> For me the downside
On 26/10/20 16:33, Joelle van Dyne wrote:
> Just to be clear, you're in favor of removing the
> --enable-cross-compile option? I can do that if others agree but I'm
> not sure what the downside of adding this extra option is?
For me the downside is that it's not clear that --cross-prefix=foo-
Just to be clear, you're in favor of removing the
--enable-cross-compile option? I can do that if others agree but I'm
not sure what the downside of adding this extra option is?
-j
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 12:54 AM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 25/10/20 20:24, Joelle van Dyne wrote:
> > As the
On 25/10/20 20:24, Joelle van Dyne wrote:
> As the patch stands --cross-prefix="" works but I like having the
> --enable-cross-compile option because it's more clear of the intention
> (in logs and such). I've been struggling to come up with a concise
> modification to the help text for
As the patch stands --cross-prefix="" works but I like having the
--enable-cross-compile option because it's more clear of the intention
(in logs and such). I've been struggling to come up with a concise
modification to the help text for --cross-prefix that explains that
empty PREFIX is allowed
On 20/10/20 07:15, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> + ;;
>> + --enable-cross-compile) cross_compile="yes"
>> + ;;
>> + --disable-cross-compile) cross_compile="no"
>
> Can't you simply use --cros-prefix="" instead?
I mean, still introduce the "cross_compile=yes" variable,
On 20/10/2020 00.24, Joelle van Dyne wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't the following test still fail
> with --cross-prefix=""
>
> if test -n "$cross_prefix"; then
> ...
>
> That was my main reason for making this change.
That's why I wrote "still introduce the cross_compile=yes
Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't the following test still fail
with --cross-prefix=""
if test -n "$cross_prefix"; then
...
That was my main reason for making this change.
-j
On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 4:24 AM BALATON Zoltan wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2020, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > On 19/10/2020
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 19/10/2020 10.07, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 19/10/2020 03.39, Joelle van Dyne wrote:
From: osy
The iOS toolchain does not use the host prefix naming convention. We add a
new option `--enable-cross-compile` that forces cross-compile even without
a
On 19/10/2020 10.07, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 19/10/2020 03.39, Joelle van Dyne wrote:
>> From: osy
>>
>> The iOS toolchain does not use the host prefix naming convention. We add a
>> new option `--enable-cross-compile` that forces cross-compile even without
>> a cross_prefix.
>>
>> Signed-off-by:
On 19/10/2020 03.39, Joelle van Dyne wrote:
> From: osy
>
> The iOS toolchain does not use the host prefix naming convention. We add a
> new option `--enable-cross-compile` that forces cross-compile even without
> a cross_prefix.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joelle van Dyne
> ---
> configure | 13
From: osy
The iOS toolchain does not use the host prefix naming convention. We add a
new option `--enable-cross-compile` that forces cross-compile even without
a cross_prefix.
Signed-off-by: Joelle van Dyne
---
configure | 13 -
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
12 matches
Mail list logo
