| 1 |
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 23:46:06 +0100 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Alexis, |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Following your remark, I have redesigned the loop to use MULTILIB_ABIS |
| 7 |
> list to order the ABIs. This should ensure the most valid replacement |
| 8 |
> order. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Great, that's better than what I had thought about |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Additionally, I have added an assertion to ensure that DEFAULT_ABI |
| 13 |
> comes last in MULTILIB_ABIS list. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I'm not sure it is a good idea: it is certainly safe, but this removes |
| 16 |
the flexibility not to build for the DEFAULT_ABI. Not sure if it's |
| 17 |
sane to do so or if there is any usecase either, but since get_all_abis |
| 18 |
ensures us DEFAULT_ABI is last I don't see a need to double check it |
| 19 |
here. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Alexis. |
Archives