On 10 December 2014 at 05:58, Burton, Ross <ross.bur...@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> On 13 November 2014 at 23:35, Dan McGregor <danismostlik...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Looks like I needed to use the same security CFLAGS as gcc-runtime and
>> libgcc. There's a new version up on my bitbucket page.
>
>
> I see you're still using anonymous python instead of COMPATIBLE_HOST to mark
> what architectures the sanitizers work on, can you change that?
>
> For packagegroups, if my recollection is correct and the problem is that a
> packagegroup wants to depend on packages which are architecture-specific, a
> common trick is to do something like this:
Yeah, that was the problem. For this round I bit the bullet and made
the package group arch specific, and I got rid of the anonymous
python. I originally put that there so that it would parse the recipe
and not barf on arches where the sanitizer libraries are not
supported.
I think this looks better though, I was struggling with getting them
into a all arch package group.
>
> SANITIZERS="gcc-sanitizer"
> SANITIZSERS_mips = ""
>
> RDEPENDS_packagegroup_foo = "${SANITIZERS}"
>
> (see the tools-profile packagegroup which does this heavily)
>
> Ross
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
