On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 11:19:59 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> The idea of setting up general "toolchains" in the native build was good,
>> but it turned out that we really only need a single toolchain, with a single
>> twist: if it should use CC or CPP to link. This is better described by a
>
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 11:19:59 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> The idea of setting up general "toolchains" in the native build was good,
>> but it turned out that we really only need a single toolchain, with a single
>> twist: if it should use CC or CPP to link. This is better described by a
>
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 11:45:59 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
> I do hope that dropping ccache support isn't something that's planned though
> :(
Not really. The benefit of dropping it is quite small, and there might be use
cases where it helps.
But I think we should perhaps be more explicit in the
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 12:58:28 GMT, Claudio Nieder wrote:
> > Could I trouble you to mention what exactly was different?
>
> No trouble at all.
>
> `CCACHE_BASEDIR=/tmp/bceaed6d/jdk/`is completely missing. (The directory is
> where I checked out OpenJDK)
>
> `CCACHE_SLOPPINESS` has the value `pc
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 11:45:59 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
> Could I trouble you to mention what exactly was different?
No trouble at all.
`CCACHE_BASEDIR=/tmp/bceaed6d/jdk/`is completely missing. (The directory is
where I checked out OpenJDK)
`CCACHE_SLOPPINESS` has the value `pch_defines,time_m
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 11:28:02 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> > I wonder if it's the SetupToolchain changes that has caused this. ccache is
> > collapsed into CC and CXX to my knowledge
>
> Yeah, it must have been. Would you like to take a look at it? Otherwise I'll
> file a bug and fix it. Bre
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 06:42:30 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
> I wonder if it's the SetupToolchain changes that has caused this. ccache is
> collapsed into CC and CXX to my knowledge
Yeah, it must have been. Would you like to take a look at it? Otherwise I'll
file a bug and fix it. Breaking ccache wa
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 11:19:59 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> The idea of setting up general "toolchains" in the native build was good,
>> but it turned out that we really only need a single toolchain, with a single
>> twist: if it should use CC or CPP to link. This is better described by a
>
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 11:19:59 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> The idea of setting up general "toolchains" in the native build was good,
>> but it turned out that we really only need a single toolchain, with a single
>> twist: if it should use CC or CPP to link. This is better described by a
>
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 11:19:59 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> The idea of setting up general "toolchains" in the native build was good,
>> but it turned out that we really only need a single toolchain, with a single
>> twist: if it should use CC or CPP to link. This is better described by a
>
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 11:19:59 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> The idea of setting up general "toolchains" in the native build was good,
>> but it turned out that we really only need a single toolchain, with a single
>> twist: if it should use CC or CPP to link. This is better described by a
>
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 11:19:59 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> The idea of setting up general "toolchains" in the native build was good,
>> but it turned out that we really only need a single toolchain, with a single
>> twist: if it should use CC or CPP to link. This is better described by a
>
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 11:19:59 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> The idea of setting up general "toolchains" in the native build was good,
>> but it turned out that we really only need a single toolchain, with a single
>> twist: if it should use CC or CPP to link. This is better described by a
>
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 11:44:31 GMT, Daniel Jeliński wrote:
> FWIW, when I added -lstdc++ before both -static-libstdc++ and replaced LDCXX
> with LD, the code compiled and linked just fine.
Both GCC and G++ call the same linker, and the parameter differences are well
documented. It's only a matter
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 11:19:59 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> The idea of setting up general "toolchains" in the native build was good,
>> but it turned out that we really only need a single toolchain, with a single
>> twist: if it should use CC or CPP to link. This is better described by a
>
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 11:09:26 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> > can we get rid of LDCXX?
>
> Yeah, that is something I plan to look into. Linking C++ object files with
> gcc will fail; and it might be that linking pure C with g++ might be
> problematic. If this is the case, I hope we can at le
> The idea of setting up general "toolchains" in the native build was good, but
> it turned out that we really only need a single toolchain, with a single
> twist: if it should use CC or CPP to link. This is better described by a
> specific argument to SetupNativeCompilation, LANG := C++ or LANG
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 08:14:56 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
> can we get rid of LDCXX?
Yeah, that is something I plan to look into. Linking C++ object files with gcc
will fail; and it might be that linking pure C with g++ might be problematic.
If this is the case, I hope we can at least determine
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 08:29:44 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
> All those new parameters to SetupNativeCompilation, were they always there
> and the comments about them were just missing from the documentation about
> the function?
Yep. The toolchain definition was a way to "package" multiple argumen
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 20:21:55 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> The idea of setting up general "toolchains" in the native build was good,
>> but it turned out that we really only need a single toolchain, with a single
>> twist: if it should use CC or CPP to link. This is better described by a
>
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 08:07:38 GMT, Daniel Jeliński wrote:
> can we get rid of LDCXX? On my system LDCXX is mapped to `g++` and LD is
> `gcc`; I searched for the differences, and the only thing I could find is
> that `g++` implicitly adds `-lstdc++ -shared-libgcc`; I suppose we could
> explicitl
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 20:21:55 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> The idea of setting up general "toolchains" in the native build was good,
>> but it turned out that we really only need a single toolchain, with a single
>> twist: if it should use CC or CPP to link. This is better described by a
>
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 20:21:55 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> The idea of setting up general "toolchains" in the native build was good,
>> but it turned out that we really only need a single toolchain, with a single
>> twist: if it should use CC or CPP to link. This is better described by a
>
On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 06:04:40 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> The idea of setting up general "toolchains" in the native build was good,
>> but it turned out that we really only need a single toolchain, with a single
>> twist: if it should use CC or CPP to link. This is better described by a
>> spe
> The idea of setting up general "toolchains" in the native build was good, but
> it turned out that we really only need a single toolchain, with a single
> twist: if it should use CC or CPP to link. This is better described by a
> specific argument to SetupNativeCompilation, LANG := C++ or LANG
> The idea of setting up general "toolchains" in the native build was good, but
> it turned out that we really only need a single toolchain, with a single
> twist: if it should use CC or CPP to link. This is better described by a
> specific argument to SetupNativeCompilation, LANG := C++ or LANG
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 16:23:43 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> The idea of setting up general "toolchains" in the native build was good, but
> it turned out that we really only need a single toolchain, with a single
> twist: if it should use CC or CPP to link. This is better described by a
> sp
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 16:23:43 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> The idea of setting up general "toolchains" in the native build was good, but
> it turned out that we really only need a single toolchain, with a single
> twist: if it should use CC or CPP to link. This is better described by a
> sp
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 16:23:43 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> The idea of setting up general "toolchains" in the native build was good, but
> it turned out that we really only need a single toolchain, with a single
> twist: if it should use CC or CPP to link. This is better described by a
> sp
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 16:23:43 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> The idea of setting up general "toolchains" in the native build was good, but
> it turned out that we really only need a single toolchain, with a single
> twist: if it should use CC or CPP to link. This is better described by a
> sp
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 16:23:43 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> The idea of setting up general "toolchains" in the native build was good, but
> it turned out that we really only need a single toolchain, with a single
> twist: if it should use CC or CPP to link. This is better described by a
> sp
The idea of setting up general "toolchains" in the native build was good, but
it turned out that we really only need a single toolchain, with a single twist:
if it should use CC or CPP to link. This is better described by a specific
argument to SetupNativeCompilation, LANG := C++ or LANG := C (t
32 matches
Mail list logo
