<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 24 August 2016 at 12:28, Jérémy Rosen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jeremy.rosen@smile.fr" target="_blank">jeremy.rosen@smile.fr</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div id=":124" class="">ok, so CC_FOR_BUILD seems to be a common convention and CCLD_FOR_BUILD seems only used by our patch for pcre. Fixing it to use CC_FOR_BUILD for linking is trivial<br>
<br>
but the patch is marked as submitted upstream, so Fahad... what is the status ? how can we do that ?<br>
<br>
I can also set CCLD_FOR_BUILD in ther .bb file instead of autotools.bbclass, that's trivial... the question is whether we should fix the patch or not...<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>CC_FOR_BUILD and CPP_FOR_BUILD are de facto standards by virtue of being part of autoconf-archive: <a href="https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf-archive/ax_prog_cc_for_build.html">https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf-archive/ax_prog_cc_for_build.html</a></div><div> <br></div></div>Looking at the patch wouldn't it be possible to avoid the entire .c -> .o -> binary process and just go from .c -> binary via CC_FOR_BUILD?</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Ross</div></div>