On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:37:42 +0100 Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:33:37 +0000
> James Le Cuirot <ch...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:20:16 +0100
> > Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 00:52:17 +0100
> > > Maciej Mrozowski <reave...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Maciej Mrozowski <reave...@gentoo.org>
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > eclass/cmake-utils.eclass | 6 +++---
> > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/eclass/cmake-utils.eclass b/eclass/cmake-utils.eclass
> > > > index 88d2163..23cc094 100644
> > > > --- a/eclass/cmake-utils.eclass
> > > > +++ b/eclass/cmake-utils.eclass
> > > > @@ -525,13 +525,13 @@ enable_cmake-utils_src_configure() {
> > > >
> > > > local toolchain_file=${BUILD_DIR}/gentoo_toolchain.cmake
> > > > cat > ${toolchain_file} <<- _EOF_ || die
> > > > - SET (CMAKE_C_COMPILER $(tc-getCC))
> > > > - SET (CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER $(tc-getCXX))
> > > > - SET (CMAKE_Fortran_COMPILER $(tc-getFC))
> > > > SET (CMAKE_AR $(type -P $(tc-getAR)) CACHE
> > > > FILEPATH
> > >
> > >
> > > Have you tested cross compiling ?
> > > IIRC toolchain file is used *before* getting those vars from env and
> > > is used to determine system & compiler type. Without this you get
> > > bugs like #503216
> >
> > I was dubious (since I filed that bug) but I briefly tested by
> > cross-compiling media-libs/openal and it worked. I didn't think to
> > try older CMake versions though. The behaviour might have changed.
> >
>
> could you please send me (in private) build logs with & without the
> changes please ?
>
> (dont have easy access to a x compile setup atm)
I diff'd the logs (needed MAKEOPTS="-j1") and they were practically
identical, save for the expected change in configure arguments. I also
tested with CMake 2.8 and that worked too. To further convince myself,
I took the current eclass and loosely reversed the change we made for
bug #503216. It failed with CMake 3.6 in exactly the same way it failed
back then. I am therefore happy for this to proceed. Would you agree?
pgpuKc3mIbo4_.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
