[OpenBIOS] [PATCH] Add non-standard compiler prefix support

[Programmingkid]

On May 8, 2015, at 9:57 AM, Lennart Sorensen wrote:

> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 02:09:16PM +0100, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
>> On 01/05/15 14:38, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 05:26:50PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>>> [ I didn't see this part of the thread before, sorry...  Well, this
>>>> separate thread of the thread, heh. ]
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 08:22:46AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
>>>>> PREFIX sure could be confused with the installation path prefix.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I like the CROSS_COMPILER variable that the linux kernel and some other
>>>>> projects use.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I do find it inconvinient that it always seems that whatever prefix
>>>>> you specify has gcc appended to it given all my cross compilers have
>>>>> gcc-version at the end of their name.  That's just how Debian has
>>>>> generated them for years.
>>>> 
>>>> GCC itself generates *both* e.g. powerpc-linux-gcc-4.9.0 and
>>>> powerpc-linux-gcc.  Debian has no way to set that to the version
>>>> you want to use?  How inconvenient.  You can make an alias of course ;-)
>>> 
>>> Well I can make a symlink, but certainly in the past (wheezy and older),
>>> when you build the cross compiler from the debian gcc source package,
>>> you get architecture-gcc-version as the binary.  It used to be they
>>> used alternatives to setup a symlink to one of the versions installed
>>> for the cross compiler, but they got rid of that (which I don't really
>>> miss because I found it always picked the wrong one by default somehow).
>>> 
>>> But I don't expect any build scripts to deal with that (certainly the
>>> linux kernel doesn't), and there are perfectly simple ways around the
>>> problem.
>> 
>> Just to recap then - if we use CROSS_COMPILE rather than CROSS_COMPILER
>> and add it to the start of the list then everyone is in agreement?
> 
> I think people can legitimately argue that if someone specifies
> CROSS_COMPILE then that is what they want to use, and you should NOT go
> looking at other options at all that might exist in that case.
> 
> After all if I make a typo in my CROSS_COMPILE line I would rather get
> an error that it can't find that compiler, than have it run of and find
> some other cross compiler I have installed and use that.
> 
> So probably the correct thing would be:
> 
> if CROSS_COMPILE is set then use CROSS_COMPILE
> else do the list search instead.

That could work. 

Using CROSS_COMPILE instead of CROSS_COMPILER doesn't seem right. CROSS_COMPILER refers to a program. CROSS_COMPILE seems to refer to a process. It seems better and more accurate to say CROSS_COMPILER. 

Thank you for your comments.