> On Jan 5, 2016, at 1:15 PM, Henrik Austad <henrik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 05:25:07PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 08:20:01AM -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 4, 2016, at 5:39 AM, Jeff Epler <jepler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I believe the patch does not have the desired effect, because make(1)
>>>> always sets CC automatically:
>>>>
>>>> $ cat raj.mk
>>>> CROSS_COMPILE=x86_64-linux-gnu-
>>>> CC?=$(CROSS_COMPILE)gcc
>>>> .PHONY: default
>>>> default:
>>>> @echo CC=$(CC)
>>>> $ make -f raj.mk
>>>> CC=cc
>>>>
>>>> With your patch, those who specify CROSS_COMPILE, or for whom gcc and cc
>>>> are different, will get different (worse) behavior.
>>>
>>> Right. I think if CC was used as such with out constructing out of CROSS_COMPILE
>>> in Makefile then my issue would be fixed too. However this would mean that cross compiling users
>>> now have to pass CC = <cross-compiler> themselves instead of CROSS_COMPILE prefix. Is that
>>> acceptable ?
>>
>> You could play with something like:
>>
>> ifeq($(origin CC),default)
>> CC=$(CROSS_COMPILE)gcc
>> endif
>>
>> but not sure I'd like the result. If you asked me, I'd drop all that
>> CROSS_COMPILE stuff.
>
> Why? Isn't this the normal way of triggering cross-compile? AFIAK, that's
> how the kernel does it, and that seems like a pretty sane way.
except, kernel lets you override CC if you want to.
>
> And yes, I compile rt-tests to several architectures, so I'm quite fond of
> the CROSS_COMPILE switch. In fact, I might get cross if you cross it out :)
All you would need is to add
CC = ${CROSS_COMPILE}gcc in one place in your Make env
>
> --
> Henrik Austad
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
