| 1 |
On Thu 27 Mar 2014 02:31:01 Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 02:07 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > An amd64 multilib system *is* expected to build x86 |
| 4 |
> > > binaries that would be hosted on itself. So i686-pc-linux-gnu-ar is |
| 5 |
> > > expected to be not a part of any cross-compile toolchain, but a part of |
| 6 |
> > > the native toolchain for the machine's secondary native ABI. Especially |
| 7 |
> > > when i686-pc-linux-gnu-ar is in /usr/bin. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > sure, and it works just fine when you use the correct toolchain. if the |
| 10 |
> > user wants to build an ABI using their default toolchain, they can pass |
| 11 |
> > the right ABI flag for it. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> They can't pass the right ABI flag because only the core parts of the |
| 14 |
> toolchain have the concept of an ABI flag. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Sure, binutils and gcc respect "-m32". But what about pkgconfig (and its |
| 17 |
> clones pkgconf and pkgconfig-openbsd)? What about the *-config tools for |
| 18 |
> various libraries? Are you going to patch all of them to respect "-m32"? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
pkg-config does need fixing in some way. we already know this. it's why the |
| 21 |
multilib eclasses currently set PKG_CONFIG_XXX vars -- preciously so the |
| 22 |
correct ABI dir is utilized. and this breaks when using some build systems |
| 23 |
(like scons) where the env gets blown away (although we also know scons |
| 24 |
sucks). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
i don't care about the *-config scripts. that's a dead concept long ago |
| 27 |
proven to suck and anything still using it needs fixing. |
| 28 |
-mike |
Archives