On 16.05.2024 14:29, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > On 16/05/2024 12:35, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >> On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 12:07:10PM +0100, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >>> Bring test_x86_emulator in line with other tests by adding >>> install/uninstall rules. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.vall...@cloud.com> >>> --- >>> tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile | 11 +++++++++-- >>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile >>> b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile >>> index 834b2112e7fe..30edf7e0185d 100644 >>> --- a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile >>> +++ b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile >>> @@ -269,8 +269,15 @@ clean: >>> .PHONY: distclean >>> distclean: clean >>> >>> -.PHONY: install uninstall >>> -install uninstall: >>> +.PHONY: install >>> +install: all >>> + $(INSTALL_DIR) $(DESTDIR)$(LIBEXEC_BIN) >>> + $(if $(TARGET-y),$(INSTALL_PROG) $(TARGET-y) $(DESTDIR)$(LIBEXEC_BIN)) >>> + >>> +.PHONY: uninstall >>> +uninstall: >>> + $(RM) -- $(addprefix $(DESTDIR)$(LIBEXEC_BIN)/,$(TARGET-y)) >>> + >> >> FWIW, should you check that HOSTCC == CC before installing? Otherwise >> I'm unsure of the result in cross-compiled builds, as the x86_emulator >> is built with HOSTCC, not CC. >> >> Thanks, Roger. > > Right... > > More generally, should we do s/CC/HOSTCC/ on all compiler checks? I see > no particular reason to do them on $(CC) rather than the actual compiler > used during build.
No. There really is a mix here, intentionally. Anything built through testcase.mk is using CC, and hence respective checking needs to use CC, too. That said, I don't think the split is done quite correctly just yet, which may raise the question of whether having the split is actually worth it. Jan
