>>> On 30.09.11 at 23:14, Adin Scannell <adin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Are you saying this actually works for you (building everything, not just
>> the tools)?
>
> To build everything, I need to tweak a couple of extra bits (in the
> attached patch). I'm somewhat wary about statements regarding
> anything build-related, because I know everyone has a different
> approach and it runs in a different environment. With the both first
> patch and the attached, everything builds for me for both
> XEN_TARGET_ARCH=x86_32 and x86_64 in my 64-bit environment.
>
>> I do cross builds too, but generally the other way around (64-bit
>> build on 32-bit host), and hence need to only cross-build the
>> hypervisor to put underneath everything.
>>
>> I can't seem to find an ld (native or cross) that would accept -m32,
>> -march=i686, ...
>
> I think I had the same thing happen to me that happened to Ian (-m32
> -melf_x86_64 ... so no errors).
Yeah, I realize that. But I'd nevertheless suggest not passing otherwise
invalid options to any build tool, as them being ignored is likely more a
bug than a feature (and ought to be considered subject to change at
any time).
> If the LDFLAGS / LDFLAGS_INDIRECT stuff is messy, my previous approach
> has been to add $(CFLAGS) to all the link steps in the tools (i.e.
> lib*, xl, etc.) so that the approach architecture flags would be
> passed to gcc for linking. I don't mind going through and doing that
Passing CFLAGS to the linking stage is as wrong as passing LDFLAGS
to the compiler for the linking step. But it was apparently agreed to
elsewhere in this thread to get this properly separated and cleaned
up anyway.
> until everything builds smoothly for 32-bit target on 64-bit, provided
> that's a friendly solution. It would be great to be able to stop using
> a set of build patches at the bottom of my queue. :)
I understand that (I have some build environment related changes at
the end of my patch set too) - as long as the changes are not
dependent upon something that is entirely specific to your env (some
of mine are), proposing them for general inclusion is certainly
reasonable. Some of what's in the patch you had attached last even
seemed more like a bug fix than a build one to me (though the tools
aren't my realm)...
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home