[OE-core] [PATCH] sanity: removed broken compiler check

[Andre McCurdy]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 4:16 AM, Enrico Scholz
<enrico.scholz at sigma-chemnitz.de> wrote:
> "Burton, Ross" <ross.burton at intel.com> writes:
>
>>> Is this check really so useful? gcc + g++ are elementary tools which can
>>> be expected.
>>
>> But they're not if BUILD_CC is overridden.  For example if the host gcc is
>> actually too old/new for OE to work and BUILD_CC has been set to point at a
>> different compiler.
>
> then, you will see a '<your-gcc>: command not found' very early in the
> build and every developer knows that '<your-gcc>' could not be found.
>
> When a misconfiguration is difficulty to detect or causes hidden breakage,
> sanity checks are important.
>
> But in this case, the check causes much more harm than it tries to solve
> (it will trigger e.g. for 'gcc -m32' too).

The existing check_gcc_march() sanity test can already do a much
better job of verifying BUILD_CC than check_app_exists(). If
check_gcc_march() could be generalised (e.g. renamed check_gcc() and
updated to always confirm that BUILD_CC can successfully compile
something) then the check_app_exists() test could be safely removed.

> Enrico
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core