| Message ID | lIPG7Aip1kvx4dmDzDQOSQ8OGS0G9_f3COv4CgIvX_FKd56k9096gjgd2FrXPGXcO4scp8HrRHMpEipnDtjOGI0MwCep2Vi3r-utcOX2eG8=@carldong.me |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [bug#35611,1/2] gnu: cross-base: Allow using non-defaultglibc. | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| cbaines/applying patch | success | Successfully applied |
Hi Carl, Carl Dong <accounts@carldong.me> skribis: > * gnu/packages/cross-base.scm (cross-libc, native-libc, cross-newlib?): > Add xlibc optional argument to specify using a non-default glibc > package. [...] > (define* (cross-libc target > #:optional > + (xlibc glibc) > (xgcc (cross-gcc target)) > (xbinutils (cross-binutils target)) > (xheaders (cross-kernel-headers target))) > - "Return a libc cross-built for TARGET, a GNU triplet. Use XGCC and > -XBINUTILS and the cross tool chain." > - (if (cross-newlib? target) > - (native-libc target) > - (let ((libc glibc)) > + "Return XLIBC cross-built for TARGET, a GNU triplet. Use XGCC and XBINUTILS > +and the cross tool chain." Really a detail, but for clarity I would change “xlibc” to “libc”, because this argument denotes a C library, not a cross-compiled C library. Ditto in other places. You can send an updated patch or I can make this change on your behalf if you prefer, let me know! > -(define (native-libc target) > +(define* (native-libc target > + #:optional > + (xlibc glibc)) > (if (target-mingw? target) > mingw-w64 > - glibc)) > + xlibc)) This procedure is starting to look weird. :-) I wonder if we should inline it at the call sites, but we can look into it later. Thanks, Ludo’.
Hi Ludovic, > Really a detail, but for clarity I would change “xlibc” to “libc”, because > this argument denotes a C library, not a cross-compiled C library. > > Ditto in other places. > > You can send an updated patch or I can make this change on your behalf if you > prefer, let me know! Ah yes! That does make it more clear. Could you make this change for me? Thanks! > This procedure is starting to look weird. :-) I wonder if we should inline it > at the call sites, but we can look into it later. Haha that's what I thought too... Inlining would probably make the most sense. I'll submit another patch to this effect at some point! Thank you so much for your help. Have an excellent day! Cheers, Carl Dong accounts@carldong.me "I fight for the users"
Hi Carl, Carl Dong <accounts@carldong.me> skribis: >> Really a detail, but for clarity I would change “xlibc” to “libc”, because >> this argument denotes a C library, not a cross-compiled C library. >> >> Ditto in other places. >> >> You can send an updated patch or I can make this change on your behalf if you >> prefer, let me know! > > Ah yes! That does make it more clear. Could you make this change for me? Thanks! Done! >> This procedure is starting to look weird. :-) I wonder if we should inline it >> at the call sites, but we can look into it later. > > Haha that's what I thought too... Inlining would probably make the most sense. > I'll submit another patch to this effect at some point! Awesome. :-) Thank you! Ludo’.
Carl Dong <accounts@carldong.me> skribis: >> Really a detail, but for clarity I would change “xlibc” to “libc”, because >> this argument denotes a C library, not a cross-compiled C library. >> >> Ditto in other places. >> >> You can send an updated patch or I can make this change on your behalf if you >> prefer, let me know! > > Ah yes! That does make it more clear. Could you make this change for me? Thanks! In commit 04a3ecc79ec01242acd0928f89bf982f50c866df, I had to remove the pre-defined uses of ‘make-gcc-libc’ because of the circular top-level references they introduced. I suppose they were here mostly for illustrative purposes though, so hopefully that’s OK. Let me know! Ludo’.
diff --git a/gnu/packages/cross-base.scm b/gnu/packages/cross-base.scm index 25caacb723..51e9e2962a 100644 --- a/gnu/packages/cross-base.scm +++ b/gnu/packages/cross-base.scm @@ -422,14 +422,15 @@ target that libc." (define* (cross-libc target #:optional + (xlibc glibc) (xgcc (cross-gcc target)) (xbinutils (cross-binutils target)) (xheaders (cross-kernel-headers target))) - "Return a libc cross-built for TARGET, a GNU triplet. Use XGCC and -XBINUTILS and the cross tool chain." - (if (cross-newlib? target) - (native-libc target) - (let ((libc glibc)) + "Return XLIBC cross-built for TARGET, a GNU triplet. Use XGCC and XBINUTILS +and the cross tool chain." + (if (cross-newlib? target xlibc) + (native-libc target xlibc) + (let ((libc xlibc)) (package (inherit libc) (name (string-append "glibc-cross-" target)) (arguments @@ -502,13 +503,17 @@ XBINUTILS and the cross tool chain." ,@(package-inputs libc) ;FIXME: static-bash ,@(package-native-inputs libc))))))) -(define (native-libc target) +(define* (native-libc target + #:optional + (xlibc glibc)) (if (target-mingw? target) mingw-w64 - glibc)) + xlibc)) -(define (cross-newlib? target) - (not (eq? (native-libc target) glibc))) +(define* (cross-newlib? target + #:optional + (xlibc glibc)) + (not (eq? (native-libc target xlibc) xlibc))) ;;; Concrete cross tool chains are instantiated like this: