On 18/03/2020 06:10, Chris Johns wrote:
On 17/3/20 4:50 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 17/03/2020 03:09, Chris Johns wrote:
That follows the rtems/waf (new build system) convention by default.
Do you mean the work Sebastian is doing? If you are, it currently might but that
work is not finished and it may change, partially to make it consistent with
this package. This has not been discussed.
We discussed the way to find tools during the waf configure phase. See bottom of
this email:
https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2019-December/056291.html
Oh we did, I am sorry.
Maybe I misinterpreted your steps 1. to 3.
I am not sure if you have, I have not tested it.
In the waf configure output you see
the absolute paths of the tools. So you can check if they are the right ones.
The way rtems_waf works is due to the paths passed to the tool check? My reading
of Hesham's change is only the env path is checked for clang and this is what I
am questioning, i.e. does the --prefix, --rtems-tools etc work with clang just
like gcc?
In the new build system, the path list is created like this:
def get_path_list(conf):
path_list = []
tools = conf.options.rtems_tools
if tools is not None:
for t in tools.split(","):
path_list.extend([t + "/bin", t])
path_list.append(conf.env.PREFIX + "/bin")
path_list.extend(os.environ.get("PATH", "").split(os.pathsep))
return path_list
I think we should be consistent what ever the specifics are and this should
before across different packages and for tools within a package.
Yes, we should have a copy and paste routine which is used across the
waf based build systems.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
