On 05/05/15 15:13, Martin Lucina wrote:
On Tuesday, 05.05.2015 at 11:24, Antti Kantee wrote:
I think I suggested not introducing defines unless they are
absolutely necessary, or any other similar identifiers for that
matter. Which are, in fact, the rumprun<platform> falls under. I
have a vague memory that Martin justified <platform> in the
toolchain name, but I'm not 100% if my memory serves me right.
The <platform> needs to be in the toolchain name so that the *user* can
distinguish the different toolchains, and also so that they can be
installed side by side in the same directory in $PATH.
Is that a useful requirement? I'm questioning its validity especially
since ...
eg there is no such thing as an arm baremetal platform,
there is one for pretty much every SoC thats ported to.
Good point.
I'm not sure what to do about that :-(
An idea: we invent some explicit flag that would be passed to our -gcc,
-g++ or -ld wrapper and mean "build for this particular board".
... the proposal doesn't satisfy it.
I'm a fan of the ". xcompile-platform.sh" approach, which sets the right
paths, CC, PS1, etc.
In that namespace we could choose $platform freely without breaking
build suites.
