Hi! Just one reply to the summary then review of the patches.
On Mon 25 Apr 2016 13:28, Jan Nieuwenhuizen <jann...@gnu.org> writes: > Yes... Why do you not prefer the and-let*, how would you write it? Well, you had two versions there, and the second one that just used let* looked fine to me. Dunno. I find that the structure imposed by and-let* tends to contort things in a way I don't want -- sometimes it's only some of the bindings that I want to test for truthiness. I find myself fighting and-let* more than enjoying it. Anyway. It is a very minor point and I don't think it matters here :) > From f2842ce5e35c0d984fc18912088bb81f9bac38f5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen <jann...@gnu.org> > Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 18:20:05 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH 1/9] gnu: cross: Use CROSS_*_INCLUDE_PATH for system headers. > > * gnu/packages/patches/gcc-cross-environment-variables.patch: Also use CROSS_ > variants: CROSS_C_INCLUDE_PATH, CROSS_CPLUS_INCLUDE_PATH, > CROSS_OBJC_INCLUDE_PATH, CROSS_OBJCPLUS_INCLUDE_PATH to be used for system > libraries, see > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-04/msg00620.html. > * gnu/packages/cross-base.scm (cross-gcc, cross-gcc-arguments, cross-libc): > Use CROSS_*_INCLUDE_PATH (WAS: CPATH). > --- > gnu/packages/cross-base.scm | 70 +++++++++++------- > .../patches/gcc-cross-environment-variables.patch | 86 > +++++++++++++++------- > 2 files changed, 104 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/gnu/packages/cross-base.scm b/gnu/packages/cross-base.scm > index 8bd599c..2e1bcf8 100644 > --- a/gnu/packages/cross-base.scm > +++ b/gnu/packages/cross-base.scm > @@ -168,34 +170,38 @@ may be either a libc package or #f.)" > (lambda* (#:key inputs #:allow-other-keys) > ;; Add the cross Linux headers to CROSS_CPATH, and remove > them > ;; from CPATH. > - (let ((libc (assoc-ref inputs "libc")) > + (let ((libc (assoc-ref inputs libc)) > (linux (assoc-ref inputs "xlinux-headers"))) FYI while I usually don't vertically line up subexpressions, it would appear to be the guix style ;) So this edit undoes some valid code. I don't think it matters though. > diff --git a/gnu/packages/patches/gcc-cross-environment-variables.patch > b/gnu/packages/patches/gcc-cross-environment-variables.patch > index 0bd0be5..a2b94cb 100644 > --- a/gnu/packages/patches/gcc-cross-environment-variables.patch > +++ b/gnu/packages/patches/gcc-cross-environment-variables.patch > @@ -1,9 +1,48 @@ OK so this is literally a patch in a patch and it gets complicated to review :) But cool, I had a question about one piece: > +diff --git a/gcc/gcc.c b/gcc/gcc.c > +index adbf0c4..70448c6 100644 > +--- a/gcc/gcc.c > ++++ b/gcc/gcc.c > +@@ -3853,7 +3853,7 @@ process_command (unsigned int decoded_options_count, > + } > + > + temp = getenv (LIBRARY_PATH_ENV); > +- if (temp && *cross_compile == '0') > ++ if (temp) > + { > + const char *startp, *endp; > + char *nstore = (char *) alloca (strlen (temp) + 3); Why this change? > ---- gcc-4.7.2/gcc/system.h 2012-02-17 00:16:28.000000000 +0100 > -+++ gcc-4.7.2/gcc/system.h 2013-02-12 10:22:17.000000000 +0100 > -@@ -1023,4 +1023,6 @@ helper_const_non_const_cast (const char > - #define DEBUG_VARIABLE > - #endif > +diff --git a/gcc/system.h b/gcc/system.h > +index 42bc509..af3b9ad 100644 > +--- a/gcc/system.h > ++++ b/gcc/system.h > +@@ -1063,4 +1063,6 @@ helper_const_non_const_cast (const char *p) > + /* Get definitions of HOST_WIDE_INT and HOST_WIDEST_INT. */ > + #include "hwint.h" > > +#define LIBRARY_PATH_ENV "CROSS_LIBRARY_PATH" > + > #endif /* ! GCC_SYSTEM_H */ > - I wasn't quite able to understand this bit. > ---- gcc-4.7.2/gcc/tlink.c 2012-02-11 09:50:23.000000000 +0100 > -+++ gcc-4.7.2/gcc/tlink.c 2013-05-23 22:06:19.000000000 +0200 > -@@ -461,7 +461,7 @@ recompile_files (void) > +diff --git a/gcc/tlink.c b/gcc/tlink.c > +index bc358b8..ad6242f 100644 > +--- a/gcc/tlink.c > ++++ b/gcc/tlink.c > +@@ -458,7 +458,7 @@ recompile_files (void) > file *f; > > putenv (xstrdup ("COMPILER_PATH=")); > - putenv (xstrdup ("LIBRARY_PATH=")); > -+ putenv (xstrdup (LIBRARY_PATH_ENV "=")); > ++ putenv (xstrdup ("LIBRARY_PATH_ENV=")); > > while ((f = file_pop ()) != NULL) > { Surely this is incorrect? > ---- gcc-4.7.3/gcc/gcc.c 2013-03-08 08:25:09.000000000 +0100 > -+++ gcc-4.7.3/gcc/gcc.c 2013-05-24 08:58:16.000000000 +0200 > -@@ -3726,7 +3726,7 @@ process_command (unsigned int decoded_op > - } > - > - temp = getenv (LIBRARY_PATH_ENV); > -- if (temp && *cross_compile == '0') > -+ if (temp) > - { > - const char *startp, *endp; > - char *nstore = (char *) alloca (strlen (temp) + 3); > -- > 2.7.3 Similar comment as above. The Scheme parts LGTM; would you mind giving details about the GCC patch? Cheers, Andy
