On Thu, 2015-08-06 at 18:14 -0700, Andre McCurdy wrote: > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Richard Purdie > <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-08-06 at 12:41 -0700, Andre McCurdy wrote: > >> If immediate variable expansion is used, then UCLIBC_EXTRA_CFLAGS can > >> sometimes be derived from a partially expanded value of CFLAGS. > >> > >> One specific problem case occurs when security_flags.inc is used: CFLAGS > >> is evaluated before the SECURITY_CFLAGS_pn-uclibc over-ride has been > >> applied and therefore UCLIBC_EXTRA_CFLAGS ends up being based on the > >> default SECURITY_CFLAGS instead of the uclibc specific value. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Andre McCurdy <armccu...@gmail.com> > >> --- > >> meta/recipes-core/uclibc/uclibc.inc | 4 ++-- > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/uclibc/uclibc.inc > >> b/meta/recipes-core/uclibc/uclibc.inc > >> index c483228..3ed8b60 100644 > >> --- a/meta/recipes-core/uclibc/uclibc.inc > >> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/uclibc/uclibc.inc > >> @@ -57,8 +57,8 @@ export V="2" > >> # -O<n> -fno-omit-frame-pointer ends up with GCC ICE on thumb as reported > >> # http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44860 > >> # > >> -CFLAGS_arm := "${@oe_filter_out('-fno-omit-frame-pointer', '${CFLAGS}', > >> d)}" > >> -UCLIBC_EXTRA_CFLAGS := "${@oe_filter_out('(-I\S+|-i\S+)', '${CFLAGS}', > >> d)}" > >> +CFLAGS_arm = "${@oe_filter_out('-fno-omit-frame-pointer', '${CFLAGS}', > >> d)}" > > > > I'm rather surprised we don't get circular references without the := > > operator with this. I suspect we can see build failures if you change > > the code like this. That said, I've been meaning to go through and > > replace all the uses of oe_filter_out with the remove operator. Can we > > do that here please instead? > > > > E.g: > > CFLAGS_remove_arm = "-fno-omit-frame-pointer" > > OK, new patch on the way. > > >> +UCLIBC_EXTRA_CFLAGS = "${@oe_filter_out('(-I\S+|-i\S+)', '${CFLAGS}', d)}" > > Is it OK to keep using oe_filter_out() here to support the regex?
Yes, the regex is obviously trickier with _remove so I think that one is a fair use of oe_filter_out(). Thanks for the updated patches, just need to answer Khem's question, it sounds like LDFLAGS may be used somehow but I've not looked at the code as yet. Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
