<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 7:50 AM, André Draszik <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:git@andred.net" target="_blank">git@andred.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">From: André Draszik <<a href="mailto:andre.draszik@jci.com">andre.draszik@jci.com</a>><br>
<br>
cmake_do_compile() and cmake_do_install() basically do the<br>
same, except they use a different --target, and at the<br>
moment this is copy/pasted code with a minor modification.<br>
<br>
Other recipes which e.g. might want to support compilation<br>
as part of ptest have to do the same. This is a bit<br>
inconvenient.<br>
<br>
By factoring out all of this into a common helper,<br>
cmake_runcmake_build(), this is easily re-used. An<br>
(imaginary) recipe can compile ptest support simply by<br>
using<br>
cmake_runcmake_build --target buildtest-TESTS<br>
(assuming such a build target exists).<br>
<br>
Also, this now is very similar to oe_runmake().<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If it’s similar to oe_runmake, why the long overly verbose function name for the new function? Is oe_runcmake not viable?</div></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Christopher Larson<br>kergoth at gmail dot com<br>Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus<br>Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics</div></div></div></div>
</div></div>