[meta-xilinx] [PATCH 4/9] Adds gcc bbappend to fix configure options, and enable --sysroot behavior

[Alejandro Enedino Hernandez Samaniego]

Hey Luca,


On 12/11/2018 07:42 AM, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> Hi Alejandro,
>
> On 06/12/18 22:56, Alejandro Enedino Hernandez Samaniego wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Enedino Hernandez Samaniego <alejandr at xilinx.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Manjukumar Matha <manjukumar.harthikote-matha at xilinx.com>
>> ---
>>   .../recipes-standalone/gcc/gcc-cross_%.bbappend         | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>>   create mode 100644 meta-xilinx-standalone/recipes-standalone/gcc/gcc-cross_%.bbappend
>>
>> diff --git a/meta-xilinx-standalone/recipes-standalone/gcc/gcc-cross_%.bbappend b/meta-xilinx-standalone/recipes-standalone/gcc/gcc-cross_%.bbappend
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..13ae02a
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/meta-xilinx-standalone/recipes-standalone/gcc/gcc-cross_%.bbappend
>> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
>> +# By using tclibc-baremetal we loose sysroot functionality due to some append/override behavior
>> +# We need to get that back , the following append overrides everything on EXTRA_OECONF for gcc cross target
>> +# it avoids overlapping with crt0 because of --enable-linker-id from EXTRA_OECONF

Since we are cross compiling using Yocto, and it was designed to build a 
Linux OS, some assumptions are made by default, with the addition of 
TCLIBC=newlib (or baremetal in any case), we get rid of those 
assumptions, and in the process we get rid of the default configuration 
parameters, the problem is that we only want to get rid of a few, so 
basically we want to get the ones that we want back from the defaults.


Although,I believe the easiest way to understand it, is to remove this 
and test this yourself, in this case if you remove this, you'll see that 
GCC fails to find the correct include files, since one of the things we 
get rid of is the --sysroot parameter.


Cheers,
Alejandro

> I'm afraid I did not understand the problem, perhaps because I'm no
> toolchain expert. Do you think there's a way to briefly clarify to
> non-experts what issue is being fixed? It would be nice to have.
>
> And, joining Jean-François in the nitpickers club... :)
> Not sure what's the coding style convention in the Yocto world, but I'd
> rather wrap lines at 80 chars and remove space-before-comma.
>