16 Apr
2004
16 Apr
'04
11 p.m.
Hi all
I am busy packaging software for Slackware and trying to compile for a
specific architecture. The one problem I am finding with several packages,
is that the configure scripts obtain the architecture of the host system,
and ignore the CFLAGS variable set that contains arguments for the compiler
to compile for a specific architecture.
I am wondering whether anybody has some work-work-arounds that might work
on all packages, or could developers possibly provide a configure
command-line argument to allow a packager to compile for a specific
architecture, other than their own? For example I am running an i686
system, whereas I want to compile for an i586 based system.
Thanks
Luke
--
Luke Yelavich
http://www.audioslack.com
luke(a)audioslack.com
17 Apr
17 Apr
2:58 a.m.
Hi Luke!
I think the --host flag in configure scripts does what you want to:
--host=HOST cross-compile to build programs to run on HOST [BUILD]
So, something like "./configure --host=i586-pc-linux-gnu" should do in your
example. Haven't tried this stuff myself though...
Regards,
Magnus
18 Apr
18 Apr
8:36 a.m.
At 01:51 PM 17/04/2004, Magnus Hjorth wrote:
Hi Luke!
I think the --host flag in configure scripts does what you want to:
--host=HOST cross-compile to build programs to run on HOST [BUILD]
So, something like "./configure --host=i586-pc-linux-gnu" should do in
your example. Haven't tried this stuff myself though...
Thanks for the suggestion, however I am actually looking to specify both
the -march flag and the -mcpu flag. This doesn't seem to do that.
Luke
--
Luke Yelavich
http://www.audioslack.com
luke(a)audioslack.com
17 Apr
17 Apr
3:55 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Can software authors make allowances for packagers?
On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 20:53, Luke Yelavich wrote:
Hi all
I am busy packaging software for Slackware and trying to compile for a
specific architecture. The one problem I am finding with several packages,
is that the configure scripts obtain the architecture of the host system,
and ignore the CFLAGS variable set that contains arguments for the compiler
to compile for a specific architecture.
I am wondering whether anybody has some work-work-arounds that might work
on all packages, or could developers possibly provide a configure
command-line argument to allow a packager to compile for a specific
architecture, other than their own? For example I am running an i686
system, whereas I want to compile for an i586 based system.
If a package's configure script doesn't recognize CFLAGS, it is a bug.
Report it as such.
Developers can build their own special compiler flags in as command line
options if they please (--enable-optimize or whatever), but running
./configure with no args must obey CFLAGS, period.
-Dave
18 Apr
18 Apr
8:36 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Can software authors make allowances for packagers?
At 03:49 PM 17/04/2004, Dave Robillard wrote:
On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 20:53, Luke Yelavich wrote:
The configure scripts do recognise CFLAGS, however the custom CFLAGS either
replace CFLAGS necessary for the package, or the package uses the same
flags with different parameters, eg -march and -mcpu flags.
Luke
--
Luke Yelavich
http://www.audioslack.com
luke(a)audioslack.com
Hi all
I am busy packaging software for Slackware and trying to compile for a
specific architecture. The one problem I am finding with several packages,
is that the configure scripts obtain the architecture of the host system,
and ignore the CFLAGS variable set that contains arguments for the
compiler
to compile for a specific architecture.
I am wondering whether anybody has some work-work-arounds that might work
on all packages, or could developers possibly provide a configure
command-line argument to allow a packager to compile for a specific
architecture, other than their own? For example I am running an i686
system, whereas I want to compile for an i586 based system.
If a package's configure script doesn't recognize CFLAGS, it is a bug.
Report it as such. 
9:57 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Can software authors make allowances for packagers?
On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 08:11:08PM +1000, Luke Yelavich wrote:
packages using automake should only set AM_CFLAGS, AM_INCLUDES, AM_LDFLAGS
etc. in Makefile.am. Resetting CFLAGS, INCLUDES, LDFLAGS etc. is a bug
(which I've also been guiltly of many times :)
so please report this to the authors, it's trivial to fix and usually
affects packaging, cross-compiling, and other strange environments ...
Conrad.
If a package's configure script doesn't recognize CFLAGS, it is a bug.
Report it as such.
The configure scripts do recognise CFLAGS, however the custom CFLAGS either
replace CFLAGS necessary for the package, or the package uses the same
flags with different parameters, eg -march and -mcpu flags. 
19 Apr
19 Apr
5:30 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Can software authors make allowances for packagers?
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:50:55 +1000
Conrad Parker <conrad(a)metadecks.org> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 08:11:08PM +1000, Luke
Yelavich wrote:
packages using automake should only set AM_CFLAGS, AM_INCLUDES, AM_LDFLAGS
etc. in Makefile.am. Resetting CFLAGS, INCLUDES, LDFLAGS etc. is a bug
(which I've also been guiltly of many times :)
I often do:
CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -Wall-sorts-of-warnings"
Is that OK? Note that it only appends stuff the CFLAGS, it does not modify
stuff that is already there.
Erik
If a package's configure script doesn't recognize CFLAGS, it is a bug.
Report it as such.
The configure scripts do recognise CFLAGS, however the custom CFLAGS either
replace CFLAGS necessary for the package, or the package uses the same
flags with different parameters, eg -march and -mcpu flags. 
6:48 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Can software authors make allowances for packagers?
On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 09:23, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:50:55 +1000
Conrad Parker <conrad(a)metadecks.org> wrote:
It potentially _does_ modify stuff that is already there.
If someone puts a '-w' (inhibit all warning messages) in CFLAGS your
'-Wall' will result in the opposite.
The last occurrence of an option on the command line counts so
CFLAGS="-Wall-sourts-of-warnings $CFLAGS"
would be better but it still does not meet automake's rules of not
touching user variables.
Stuff like warnings are not really evil but imagine you'd append a '-O3'
this way. It would no longer be possible to make sure that the compiler
does not apply any optimization by calling 'make CFLAGS=-O0'.
So if you asked me I'd say yes, it's still a bug. :)
Jan
packages using automake should only set
AM_CFLAGS, AM_INCLUDES, AM_LDFLAGS
etc. in Makefile.am. Resetting CFLAGS, INCLUDES, LDFLAGS etc. is a bug
(which I've also been guiltly of many times :)
I often do:
CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -Wall-sorts-of-warnings"
Is that OK? Note that it only appends stuff the CFLAGS, it does not modify
stuff that is already there.
7557
days inactive
7560
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
7 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Conrad Parker -
Dave Robillard -
Erik de Castro Lopo -
Jan Weil -
Luke Yelavich -
Magnus Hjorth