[Buildroot] [PATCH 01/15] toolchain/helpers: add mandatory check for uclibc toolchain options
gustavo at zacarias.com.ar
Tue Mar 17 12:18:01 UTC 2015
On 03/14/2015 07:18 PM, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> Gustavo, All,
> On 2015-03-13 15:22 -0300, Gustavo Zacarias spake thusly:
>> Take 'm' as parameter in $2 (buildroot option name) in
>> check_uclibc_feature to indicate that a toolchain option is mandatory,
>> and bail out with an appropiate message if that's the case.
> I had a hard time figuring out what you were doing here...
> What about:
> toolchain/helpers: add check for mandatory uClibc options
> We currently only check that the Buildroot configuration matches
> what is available in the toolchain.
> Since we're going to remove the check for LFS and make it a
> mandatory feature, we will lose the corresponding Buildroot
> option, so we won't be able to use check_uclibc_feature as-is.
> Introduce a special, magic value passed as the Buildroot option
> name to recognise checks for mandatory uClibc options that do not
> have a corresponding option in Buldroot.
> If the Buildroot option name is 'm', then the check is against
> a mandatory uClibc option.
> If a mandatory uClibc option is missing, we reject the toolchain
> as being unusable by Buildroot.
> However, I don't think 'm' is the most appropriate. That's what somehow
> confused me: wtf are we concerned about tristates? What about making
> the check against an empty Buildroot option name, instead? No Buildroot
> option name means there's no correlation to be made, and hence is a
> mandatory uClibc option...
Actually i used 'm' as shortcut for 'mandatory', it's purely casual that
it matches tristate.
Initially i was going to duplicate functionality (make another function)
for mandatory toolchain options, used like:
file support) ;\
I'm not a big friend of magical strings but decided to throw the 'm' and
see what other said.
Still, i'd prefer the extra function for clarity.
More information about the buildroot