Re: RFR: 8326583: Remove over-generalized DefineNativeToolchain solution [v3]

2024-02-27 Thread Julian Waters
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

Re: RFR: 8326583: Remove over-generalized DefineNativeToolchain solution [v3]

2024-02-27 Thread Magnus Ihse Bursie
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

Re: RFR: 8326583: Remove over-generalized DefineNativeToolchain solution [v3]

2024-02-27 Thread Magnus Ihse Bursie
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

Re: RFR: 8326583: Remove over-generalized DefineNativeToolchain solution [v3]

2024-02-27 Thread Julian Waters
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

Re: RFR: 8326583: Remove over-generalized DefineNativeToolchain solution [v3]

2024-02-27 Thread Julian Waters
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 >

Re: RFR: 8326583: Remove over-generalized DefineNativeToolchain solution [v3]

2024-02-27 Thread Daniel Jeliński
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

Re: RFR: 8326583: Remove over-generalized DefineNativeToolchain solution [v3]

2024-02-26 Thread Julian Waters
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

Re: RFR: 8326583: Remove over-generalized DefineNativeToolchain solution [v3]

2024-02-26 Thread Magnus Ihse Bursie
> 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