| Message ID | 20201019013928.72770-3-j@getutm.app |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | iOS and Apple Silicon host support | expand |
On 19/10/2020 03.39, Joelle van Dyne wrote: > From: osy <osy86@users.noreply.github.com> > > The iOS toolchain does not use the host prefix naming convention. We add a > new option `--enable-cross-compile` that forces cross-compile even without > a cross_prefix. > > Signed-off-by: Joelle van Dyne <j@getutm.app> > --- > configure | 13 ++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/configure b/configure > index 3c63879750..46d5db63e8 100755 > --- a/configure > +++ b/configure > @@ -234,6 +234,7 @@ cpu="" > iasl="iasl" > interp_prefix="/usr/gnemul/qemu-%M" > static="no" > +cross_compile="no" > cross_prefix="" > audio_drv_list="" > block_drv_rw_whitelist="" > @@ -456,6 +457,11 @@ for opt do > optarg=$(expr "x$opt" : 'x[^=]*=\(.*\)') > case "$opt" in > --cross-prefix=*) cross_prefix="$optarg" > + cross_compile="yes" > + ;; > + --enable-cross-compile) cross_compile="yes" > + ;; > + --disable-cross-compile) cross_compile="no" Can't you simply use --cros-prefix="" instead? Thomas
On 19/10/2020 10.07, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 19/10/2020 03.39, Joelle van Dyne wrote: >> From: osy <osy86@users.noreply.github.com> >> >> The iOS toolchain does not use the host prefix naming convention. We add a >> new option `--enable-cross-compile` that forces cross-compile even without >> a cross_prefix. >> >> Signed-off-by: Joelle van Dyne <j@getutm.app> >> --- >> configure | 13 ++++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/configure b/configure >> index 3c63879750..46d5db63e8 100755 >> --- a/configure >> +++ b/configure >> @@ -234,6 +234,7 @@ cpu="" >> iasl="iasl" >> interp_prefix="/usr/gnemul/qemu-%M" >> static="no" >> +cross_compile="no" >> cross_prefix="" >> audio_drv_list="" >> block_drv_rw_whitelist="" >> @@ -456,6 +457,11 @@ for opt do >> optarg=$(expr "x$opt" : 'x[^=]*=\(.*\)') >> case "$opt" in >> --cross-prefix=*) cross_prefix="$optarg" >> + cross_compile="yes" >> + ;; >> + --enable-cross-compile) cross_compile="yes" >> + ;; >> + --disable-cross-compile) cross_compile="no" > > Can't you simply use --cros-prefix="" instead? I mean, still introduce the "cross_compile=yes" variable, just omit the new options. Thomas
Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't the following test still fail with --cross-prefix="" if test -n "$cross_prefix"; then ... That was my main reason for making this change. -j On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 4:24 AM BALATON Zoltan <balaton@eik.bme.hu> wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Oct 2020, Thomas Huth wrote: > > On 19/10/2020 10.07, Thomas Huth wrote: > >> On 19/10/2020 03.39, Joelle van Dyne wrote: > >>> From: osy <osy86@users.noreply.github.com> > >>> > >>> The iOS toolchain does not use the host prefix naming convention. We add a > >>> new option `--enable-cross-compile` that forces cross-compile even without > >>> a cross_prefix. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Joelle van Dyne <j@getutm.app> > >>> --- > >>> configure | 13 ++++++++++++- > >>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/configure b/configure > >>> index 3c63879750..46d5db63e8 100755 > >>> --- a/configure > >>> +++ b/configure > >>> @@ -234,6 +234,7 @@ cpu="" > >>> iasl="iasl" > >>> interp_prefix="/usr/gnemul/qemu-%M" > >>> static="no" > >>> +cross_compile="no" > >>> cross_prefix="" > >>> audio_drv_list="" > >>> block_drv_rw_whitelist="" > >>> @@ -456,6 +457,11 @@ for opt do > >>> optarg=$(expr "x$opt" : 'x[^=]*=\(.*\)') > >>> case "$opt" in > >>> --cross-prefix=*) cross_prefix="$optarg" > >>> + cross_compile="yes" > >>> + ;; > >>> + --enable-cross-compile) cross_compile="yes" > >>> + ;; > >>> + --disable-cross-compile) cross_compile="no" > >> > >> Can't you simply use --cros-prefix="" instead? > > > > I mean, still introduce the "cross_compile=yes" variable, just omit the new > > options. > > That seems less intuitive for people trying to find this option. If --help > lists --enable-cross-compile I can guess what that means but there's no > way I could guess --cros-prefix="" unless I've been told or searched and > stumbled upon it. So unless it's a big problem I like the explicit options > better. Or is that a convention in other projects to use empty prefix to > enable cross compile that I don't know about? > > Regards, > BALATON Zoltan
On 20/10/2020 00.24, Joelle van Dyne wrote: > Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't the following test still fail > with --cross-prefix="" > > if test -n "$cross_prefix"; then > ... > > That was my main reason for making this change. That's why I wrote "still introduce the cross_compile=yes variable" ... that change is certainly required anyway. >>>>> @@ -456,6 +457,11 @@ for opt do >>>>> optarg=$(expr "x$opt" : 'x[^=]*=\(.*\)') >>>>> case "$opt" in >>>>> --cross-prefix=*) cross_prefix="$optarg" >>>>> + cross_compile="yes" >>>>> + ;; >>>>> + --enable-cross-compile) cross_compile="yes" >>>>> + ;; >>>>> + --disable-cross-compile) cross_compile="no" >>>> >>>> Can't you simply use --cros-prefix="" instead? >>> >>> I mean, still introduce the "cross_compile=yes" variable, just omit the new >>> options. >> >> That seems less intuitive for people trying to find this option. If --help >> lists --enable-cross-compile I can guess what that means but there's no >> way I could guess --cros-prefix="" unless I've been told or searched and >> stumbled upon it. So unless it's a big problem I like the explicit options >> better. Or is that a convention in other projects to use empty prefix to >> enable cross compile that I don't know about? I don't think that --cross-prefix is a "standard" option... Most other (GNU-tools related) projects use "--build" and "--host" instead... so I guess we're free to chose here. Let's see whether other people here have an opionion on this... Thomas
On 20/10/20 07:15, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>>>> + ;; >>>>>> + --enable-cross-compile) cross_compile="yes" >>>>>> + ;; >>>>>> + --disable-cross-compile) cross_compile="no" >>>>> >>>>> Can't you simply use --cros-prefix="" instead? >>>> >>>> I mean, still introduce the "cross_compile=yes" variable, just omit the new >>>> options. >>> >>> That seems less intuitive for people trying to find this option. If --help >>> lists --enable-cross-compile I can guess what that means but there's no >>> way I could guess --cros-prefix="" unless I've been told or searched and >>> stumbled upon it. So unless it's a big problem I like the explicit options >>> better. Or is that a convention in other projects to use empty prefix to >>> enable cross compile that I don't know about? > > I don't think that --cross-prefix is a "standard" option... Most other > (GNU-tools related) projects use "--build" and "--host" instead... so I > guess we're free to chose here. Let's see whether other people here have an > opionion on this... Yeah, the way GNU tools do it is that you specify --build and --host, and --host triggers cross compilation. I'm not sure how they'd handle the situation where the cross prefix is empty. For QEMU, I agree with Thomas that --cross-prefix="" is enough. Paolo
As the patch stands --cross-prefix="" works but I like having the --enable-cross-compile option because it's more clear of the intention (in logs and such). I've been struggling to come up with a concise modification to the help text for --cross-prefix that explains that empty PREFIX is allowed and why you would want to do that. -j On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 1:35 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 20/10/20 07:15, Thomas Huth wrote: > >>>>>> + ;; > >>>>>> + --enable-cross-compile) cross_compile="yes" > >>>>>> + ;; > >>>>>> + --disable-cross-compile) cross_compile="no" > >>>>> > >>>>> Can't you simply use --cros-prefix="" instead? > >>>> > >>>> I mean, still introduce the "cross_compile=yes" variable, just omit the new > >>>> options. > >>> > >>> That seems less intuitive for people trying to find this option. If --help > >>> lists --enable-cross-compile I can guess what that means but there's no > >>> way I could guess --cros-prefix="" unless I've been told or searched and > >>> stumbled upon it. So unless it's a big problem I like the explicit options > >>> better. Or is that a convention in other projects to use empty prefix to > >>> enable cross compile that I don't know about? > > > > I don't think that --cross-prefix is a "standard" option... Most other > > (GNU-tools related) projects use "--build" and "--host" instead... so I > > guess we're free to chose here. Let's see whether other people here have an > > opionion on this... > > Yeah, the way GNU tools do it is that you specify --build and --host, > and --host triggers cross compilation. I'm not sure how they'd handle > the situation where the cross prefix is empty. > > For QEMU, I agree with Thomas that --cross-prefix="" is enough. > > Paolo >
On 25/10/20 20:24, Joelle van Dyne wrote: > As the patch stands --cross-prefix="" works but I like having the > --enable-cross-compile option because it's more clear of the intention > (in logs and such). I've been struggling to come up with a concise > modification to the help text for --cross-prefix that explains that > empty PREFIX is allowed and why you would want to do that. --cross-prefix=PREFIX enable cross compilation, using PREFIX in front of compile tools Paolo
Just to be clear, you're in favor of removing the --enable-cross-compile option? I can do that if others agree but I'm not sure what the downside of adding this extra option is? -j On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 12:54 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 25/10/20 20:24, Joelle van Dyne wrote: > > As the patch stands --cross-prefix="" works but I like having the > > --enable-cross-compile option because it's more clear of the intention > > (in logs and such). I've been struggling to come up with a concise > > modification to the help text for --cross-prefix that explains that > > empty PREFIX is allowed and why you would want to do that. > > --cross-prefix=PREFIX enable cross compilation, using PREFIX > in front of compile tools > > Paolo >
On 26/10/20 16:33, Joelle van Dyne wrote: > Just to be clear, you're in favor of removing the > --enable-cross-compile option? I can do that if others agree but I'm > not sure what the downside of adding this extra option is? For me the downside is that it's not clear that --cross-prefix=foo- implies --enable-cross-compile. Paolo > -j > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 12:54 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> On 25/10/20 20:24, Joelle van Dyne wrote: >>> As the patch stands --cross-prefix="" works but I like having the >>> --enable-cross-compile option because it's more clear of the intention >>> (in logs and such). I've been struggling to come up with a concise >>> modification to the help text for --cross-prefix that explains that >>> empty PREFIX is allowed and why you would want to do that. >> >> --cross-prefix=PREFIX enable cross compilation, using PREFIX >> in front of compile tools >> >> Paolo >> >
On 26/10/2020 17.15, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 26/10/20 16:33, Joelle van Dyne wrote: >> Just to be clear, you're in favor of removing the >> --enable-cross-compile option? I can do that if others agree but I'm >> not sure what the downside of adding this extra option is? > > For me the downside is that it's not clear that --cross-prefix=foo- > implies --enable-cross-compile. I agree with Paolo ... two options sound rather confusing to me than just having one option. And the amount of options of the configure script is too big already anyway, so I'd recommend to drop --enable-cross-compile. Thomas
diff --git a/configure b/configure index 3c63879750..46d5db63e8 100755 --- a/configure +++ b/configure @@ -234,6 +234,7 @@ cpu="" iasl="iasl" interp_prefix="/usr/gnemul/qemu-%M" static="no" +cross_compile="no" cross_prefix="" audio_drv_list="" block_drv_rw_whitelist="" @@ -456,6 +457,11 @@ for opt do optarg=$(expr "x$opt" : 'x[^=]*=\(.*\)') case "$opt" in --cross-prefix=*) cross_prefix="$optarg" + cross_compile="yes" + ;; + --enable-cross-compile) cross_compile="yes" + ;; + --disable-cross-compile) cross_compile="no" ;; --cc=*) CC="$optarg" ;; @@ -878,6 +884,10 @@ for opt do ;; --cross-prefix=*) ;; + --enable-cross-compile) + ;; + --disable-cross-compile) + ;; --cc=*) ;; --host-cc=*) host_cc="$optarg" @@ -1687,6 +1697,7 @@ Advanced options (experts only): --efi-aarch64=PATH PATH of efi file to use for aarch64 VMs. --with-suffix=SUFFIX suffix for QEMU data inside datadir/libdir/sysconfdir/docdir [$qemu_suffix] --with-pkgversion=VERS use specified string as sub-version of the package + --enable-cross-compile enable cross compiling (set automatically if $cross_prefix is set) --enable-debug enable common debug build options --enable-sanitizers enable default sanitizers --enable-tsan enable thread sanitizer @@ -7164,7 +7175,7 @@ if has $sdl2_config; then fi echo "strip = [$(meson_quote $strip)]" >> $cross echo "windres = [$(meson_quote $windres)]" >> $cross -if test -n "$cross_prefix"; then +if test "$cross_compile" = "yes"; then cross_arg="--cross-file config-meson.cross" echo "[host_machine]" >> $cross if test "$mingw32" = "yes" ; then