On 4 April 2016 at 10:08, Anders Roxell <anders.rox...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 26 March 2016 at 02:06, Brian Brooks <brian.bro...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 04/01 22:15:34, Anders Roxell wrote: > >> On 25 March 2016 at 20:25, Brian Brooks <brian.bro...@linaro.org> > wrote: > >> > If --with-cunit-path=DIR is used, skip the AC_CHECK_LIB and modify > the linker > >> > flags accordingly. > >> > >> Why should we skip the AC_CHECK_LIB and AC_CHECK_HEADERS step > >> don't feel right. > >> > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Brian Brooks <brian.bro...@linaro.org> > >> > --- > >> > test/m4/validation.m4 | 8 ++++++-- > >> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > > >> > diff --git a/test/m4/validation.m4 b/test/m4/validation.m4 > >> > index b137118..f6c93f7 100644 > >> > --- a/test/m4/validation.m4 > >> > +++ b/test/m4/validation.m4 > >> > @@ -33,12 +33,16 @@ AC_HELP_STRING([--with-cunit-path=DIR path to > CUnit libs and headers], > >> > > ########################################################################## > >> > # Check for CUnit availability > >> > > ########################################################################## > >> > -if test x$cunit_support = xyes > >> > +if test x$cunit_support = xyes -a -z "$CUNIT_PATH" > >> > then > >> > AC_CHECK_LIB([cunit],[CU_get_error], [], > >> > [AC_MSG_ERROR([CUnit libraries required])]) > >> > AC_CHECK_HEADERS([CUnit/Basic.h], [], > >> > [AC_MSG_FAILURE(["can't find cunit headers"])]) > >> > else > >> > - cunit_support=no > >> > + if test -z "$CUNIT_PATH"; then > >> > + cunit_support=no > >> > + else > >> > + AM_LDFLAGS="$AM_LDFLAGS -lcunit" > >> > + fi > >> > >> this patch is still incomplete you miss to add the headers right. > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > Can you help me understand why this patch is incomplete? > > I was wrong! > I forgot that we add cunits header and lib path above. > > > > > The include & lib path for OOT CUnit is taken care of via AM_CPPFLAGS and > > AM_LDFLAGS when --with-cunit-path=DIR is used. Only "-lcunit" is required > > if AC_CHECK_LIB is skipped. > > You are correct that is enough. > > > > > AC_CHECK_LIB has side effect of LIBS+="-lcunit" which makes subsequent > > autoconf checking, e.g. for GCC atomics, fail because the include & lib > > path for OOT CUnit is in AM_CPPFLAGS and AM_LDFLAGS not CPPFLAGS and > > LDFLAGS. The previous workaround is rather tricky to do cleanly here--if > > possible at all. The reason is the location of the WAR and CUnit checking > > was at the very bottom of the configure stage. So, no subsequent building > > of tiny programs for checking feature support was happening. Now, the > > CUnit checking is happening earlier in configure stage which makes the > > previous WAR very difficult to support. I do not think it is possible. > > If we think its acceptable to fail when build and not early during > configure then > we should remove AM_CHECK_* for other OOT as well, and not only this. > > > > > The proposal here is to simply skip the AC_CHECK_LIB & AC_CHECK_HEADERS > > and add the "-lcunit" side effect via AM_LDFLAGS _only_ when > > --with-cunit-path=DIR is used. If DIR is incorrect, the build will still > > fail, just at later stage instead of in configure stage. This might be > > acceptable to developers who choose to work on ODP with an OOT CUnit. > > I like the idea of failing early in the configure step and not when > building. > I can't see a rationale for not failing as soon as possible, but I might be missing something since I did not study this patch. > > > > > What do you think? Do you have alternate recommendation e.g. moving CUnit > > checking back to bottom of configure stage so WAR can be used? > > that was basically what I did with [1], right. > > Cheers, > Anders > [1] https://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/lng-odp/2016-April/021682.html > _______________________________________________ > lng-odp mailing list > lng-odp@lists.linaro.org > https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp > -- Mike Holmes Technical Manager - Linaro Networking Group Linaro.org <http://www.linaro.org/> *│ *Open source software for ARM SoCs "Work should be fun and collaborative, the rest follows"
_______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list lng-odp@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
