[PATCH] switch-arch: Add non-standard compiler prefix support

[Mark Cave-Ayland]

Allow a user-defined compiler prefix to be specified via the CROSS_COMPILE
variable when running switch-arch, e.g.

CROSS_COMPILE=powerpc-linux- ./config/scripts/switch-arch ppc

Based upon an original patch by John Arbuckle .

Signed-off-by: Mark Cave-Ayland 
---
 openbios-devel/config/scripts/switch-arch |    8 +++++++-
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/openbios-devel/config/scripts/switch-arch b/openbios-devel/config/scripts/switch-arch
index 868eae6..d5e2f77 100755
--- a/openbios-devel/config/scripts/switch-arch
+++ b/openbios-devel/config/scripts/switch-arch
@@ -99,7 +99,13 @@ archname()

select_prefix()
 {
-    for TARGET in ${1}-unknown-linux-gnu- ${1}-linux-gnu- ${1}-linux- ${1}-elf- ${1}-eabi-
+    TARGETS="${1}-unknown-linux-gnu- ${1}-linux-gnu- ${1}-linux- ${1}-elf- ${1}-eabi-"
+
+    if [ x"$CROSS_COMPILE" != "x" ]; then
+        TARGETS=$CROSS_COMPILE
+    fi
+
+    for TARGET in $TARGETS
     do
         if type ${TARGET}gcc > /dev/null 2>&1
         then

[PATCH] switch-arch: Add non-standard compiler prefix support

[Programmingkid]

On May 10, 2015, at 5:23 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> Allow a user-defined compiler prefix to be specified via the CROSS_COMPILE
> variable when running switch-arch, e.g.
>
> CROSS_COMPILE=powerpc-linux- ./config/scripts/switch-arch ppc
>
> Based upon an original patch by John Arbuckle .
> Signed-off-by: Mark Cave-Ayland
>
> openbios-devel/config/scripts/switch-arch |    8 +++++++-
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/openbios-devel/config/scripts/switch-arch b/openbios-devel/config/scripts/switch-arch
> index 868eae6..d5e2f77 100755
> --- a/openbios-devel/config/scripts/switch-arch
> +++ b/openbios-devel/config/scripts/switch-arch
> @@ -99,7 +99,13 @@ archname()
>
> select_prefix()
> {
> for TARGET in ${1}-unknown-linux-gnu- ${1}-linux-gnu- ${1}-linux- ${1}-elf- ${1}-eabi-
> TARGETS="${1}-unknown-linux-gnu- ${1}-linux-gnu- ${1}-linux- ${1}-elf- ${1}-eabi-"
> if [ x"$CROSS_COMPILE" != "x" ]; then
>    TARGETS=$CROSS_COMPILE
> fi
> for TARGET in $TARGETS
> do
>    if type ${TARGET}gcc > /dev/null 2>&1
>    then

I still prefer CROSS_COMPILER to CROSS_COMPILE, but I can live with the change.

What advantage does the code  "if [ x"$CROSS_COMPILE" != "x" ];" have over "if [ "$CROSS_COMPILE" ];"?

[PATCH] switch-arch: Add non-standard compiler prefix support

[Tarl Neustaedter]

On 2015-May-10 17:08 , Programmingkid wrote:
[...]
> What advantage does the code  "if [ x"$CROSS_COMPILE" != "x" ];" have over "if [ "$CROSS_COMPILE" ];"?

I don't believe the latter form worked on the early versions of sh/test, 
there might still be systems where if [""]; produces a syntax error.

[PATCH] switch-arch: Add non-standard compiler prefix support

[Andreas Färber]

Am 10.05.2015 um 23:37 schrieb Tarl Neustaedter:
> On 2015-May-10 17:08 , Programmingkid wrote:
> [...]
> > What advantage does the code  "if [ x"$CROSS_COMPILE" != "x" ];" have
> > over "if [ "$CROSS_COMPILE" ];"?
>
> I don't believe the latter form worked on the early versions of sh/test,
> there might still be systems where if [""]; produces a syntax error.

Is 'if [ -z "$CROSS_COMPILE" ]' (untested) any more compatible?

Cheers,
Andreas

[PATCH] switch-arch: Add non-standard compiler prefix support

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 02:57:51PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 10.05.2015 um 23:37 schrieb Tarl Neustaedter:
> > On 2015-May-10 17:08 , Programmingkid wrote:
> > [...]
> > > What advantage does the code  "if [ x"$CROSS_COMPILE" != "x" ];" have
> > > over "if [ "$CROSS_COMPILE" ];"?
> >
> > I don't believe the latter form worked on the early versions of sh/test,
> > there might still be systems where if [""]; produces a syntax error.
>
> Is 'if [ -z "$CROSS_COMPILE" ]' (untested) any more compatible?

Yes, but checks for empty rather than non empty.

[PATCH] switch-arch: Add non-standard compiler prefix support

[Mark Cave-Ayland]

On 11/05/15 15:29, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 02:57:51PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> > Am 10.05.2015 um 23:37 schrieb Tarl Neustaedter:
> > > On 2015-May-10 17:08 , Programmingkid wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > What advantage does the code  "if [ x"$CROSS_COMPILE" != "x" ];" have
> > > > over "if [ "$CROSS_COMPILE" ];"?
> > >
> > > I don't believe the latter form worked on the early versions of sh/test,
> > > there might still be systems where if [""]; produces a syntax error.
> >
> > Is 'if [ -z "$CROSS_COMPILE" ]' (untested) any more compatible?
>
> Yes, but checks for empty rather than non empty.

FWIW I used the "if [ x"$CROSS_COMPILE" != "x" ];" version because
that's the existing convention used within the file to detect empty
variables and I'd like to keep everything consistent.

ATB,

Mark.

[PATCH] switch-arch: Add non-standard compiler prefix support

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 05:08:33PM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
> On May 10, 2015, at 5:23 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> > Allow a user-defined compiler prefix to be specified via the CROSS_COMPILE
> > variable when running switch-arch, e.g.
> >
> > CROSS_COMPILE=powerpc-linux- ./config/scripts/switch-arch ppc
> >
> > Based upon an original patch by John Arbuckle .
> > Signed-off-by: Mark Cave-Ayland
> >
> > openbios-devel/config/scripts/switch-arch |    8 +++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/openbios-devel/config/scripts/switch-arch b/openbios-devel/config/scripts/switch-arch
> > index 868eae6..d5e2f77 100755
> > --- a/openbios-devel/config/scripts/switch-arch
> > +++ b/openbios-devel/config/scripts/switch-arch
> > @@ -99,7 +99,13 @@ archname()
> >
> > select_prefix()
> > {
> > for TARGET in ${1}-unknown-linux-gnu- ${1}-linux-gnu- ${1}-linux- ${1}-elf- ${1}-eabi-
> > TARGETS="${1}-unknown-linux-gnu- ${1}-linux-gnu- ${1}-linux- ${1}-elf- ${1}-eabi-"
> > if [ x"$CROSS_COMPILE" != "x" ]; then
> >    TARGETS=$CROSS_COMPILE
> > fi
> > for TARGET in $TARGETS
> > do
> >    if type ${TARGET}gcc > /dev/null 2>&1
> >    then
>
> I still prefer CROSS_COMPILER to CROSS_COMPILE, but I can live with the change.
>
> What advantage does the code  "if [ x"$CROSS_COMPILE" != "x" ];" have over "if [ "$CROSS_COMPILE" ];"?

Did you mean:

if [ -n "$CROSS_COMPILE" ];?