15/01/2021 16:24, David Marchand: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 11:01 PM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > 13/01/2021 20:05, Thomas Monjalon: > > > When testing compilation and checking ABI compatibility, > > > there is no real need of static binaries eating disks. > > > > > > The static linkage of applications was already well tested, > > > though the static examples tested with meson were limited to "l3fwd" only. > > > The static build test with make is limited to "helloworld" example. > > > > > > The ABI compatibility is checked on shared libraries, > > > and there is no need to test again on similar builds. > > > A new parameter is added to the function "build", > > > so the ABI check is enabled only for native gcc and clang shared builds, > > > 32-bit, generic armv8 and ppc cross compilations. > > > In other words, it is disabled for some static builds and some Arm ones. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > --- > > > v2: > > > - separate ABI check enablement from default library > > > - disable ABI check in specific Arm builds > > > --- > > [...] > > > -build build-x86-default cc -Dlibdir=lib -Dmachine=$default_machine > > > $use_shared > > > +build build-x86-default cc ABI \ > > > + -Dlibdir=lib -Dmachine=$default_machine $use_shared > > > > After a second thought, I think this one should be "skipABI". > > No opinion on this one. > > The title might need some tweak, since you also disabled the ABI check > on some ARM targets.
Yes, you're right. Disabling some ABI checks is a way to reduce the number of static binaries, but it should be visible in the title. > The rest lgtm. > > Acked-by: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com> Applied with title "devtools: reduce ABI checks and static binaries"
