[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160216194922.GW9349@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 14:49:22 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Compile error with --target=i386
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:12:39PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Rich Felker wrote:
> > In the case of musl, CFLAGS is always passed even at the linking
> > stage; I think the problem is just at configure time, where the
> > user-provided CFLAGS are not used in all the configure-time tests.
> > Maybe this is contrary to the normal UI for configure scripts and
> > should be changed?
>
> I don't have a strong opinion whether it's contrary or not; my weak opinion is
> that it is contrary, indeed; but nevertheless I stand by my original point
> that -m32 is better when specified in $CC, generally speaking.
>
> If you look at the opening post, you'll see that -m32 does not appear on the
> quoted command line. If Petr did it as he has shown, he forgot to 'export'
> the variable; this would explain the failure (otherwise as you say it should
> have worked).
>
> Also please note that $CC should have -m32 (and any other ABI tweaks) for
> musl-gcc to work as intended.
Yes, I agree with all this. I was just wondering if we should be
including that invoking user's CFLAGS when running tests in configure.
Right now I think it's inconsistent whether we do or not.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
