Test build failed due to UCLIBC_INTERNAL header rework
carmelo.amoroso at st.com
Tue Jun 17 13:51:52 UTC 2008
Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 04:10:23PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>>> I have no comment on the patch itself, but I like the approach - I've
>>> concluded before that this is the only sane way to test toolchain
>>> pieces, especially compiler or C library. We do all of our testing
>>> after installation here.
>> My patch doesn't really create a full installation tree that looks
>> identical to the one created by 'make install'; that might require
>> somewhat more effort (unless we want to just $(MAKE) install
>> DESTDIR=somewhere/in/tree for every make test).
> A better approach would be to just
> test-includes: test/include/bits/uClibc_config.h
> $(make) -C $(top_builddir) PREFIX=test/ RUNTIME_PREFIX=test/ \
> DEVEL_PREFIX=/ \
> HOSTCC="$(HOSTCC)" \
> eventual_flags_passing_here \
> i.e. do a real, full install an no fakery.
I've hacked Makefile based on your both inputs and tested a working
Moreover I think this approach should be used for building the utils
too, this why
I think dev files (headers/lib*.a and linker script lib*.so) should be
installed in a dir
(let's say 'install_dir') undert the builddir instead of the test folder.
I'll came soon with a complete patch for you wider review.
> uClibc mailing list
> uClibc at uclibc.org
More information about the uClibc