Re: [PING] libffi: Consider '--with-build-sysroot=[...]' for target libraries' build-tree testing (instead of build-time 'CC' etc.) [PR109951]

[Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>]

On 10/25/23 02:30, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Ping.
> 
> 
> Grüße
>   Thomas
> 
> 
> On 2023-09-12T12:58:27+0200, I wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> On 2020-04-20T14:18:40+0100, "Maciej W. Rozycki via Gcc-patches" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>> Fix a problem with the libffi testsuite using a method to determine the
>>> compiler to use resulting in the tool being different from one the
>>> library has been built with, and causing a catastrophic failure from the
>>> inability to actually choose any compiler at all in a cross-compilation
>>> configuration.
>>
>> This has since, as far as I can tell, been resolved properly by H.J. Lu's
>> GCC commit 5be7b66998127286fada45e4f23bd8a2056d553e,
>> "libffi: Integrate build with GCC", and
>> GCC commit 4824ed41ba7cd63e60fd9f8769a58b79935a90d1
>> "libffi: Integrate testsuite with GCC testsuite".
>>
>>> Address this problem by providing a DejaGNU configuration file defining
>>> the compiler to use, via the CC_FOR_TARGET TCL variable, set from $CC by
>>> autoconf, which will have all the required options set for the target
>>> compiler to build executables in the environment configured
>>
>> As we've found, this is conceptually problematic, as discussed in
>> <https://inbox.sourceware.org/875y868a4b.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net>
>> "Consider '--with-build-sysroot=[...]' for target libraries' build-tree testing (instead of build-time 'CC' etc.) [PR109951]".
>> I therefore suggest to apply to GCC libffi the conceptually same changes
>> as I've just pushed for libgomp:
>> <https://inbox.sourceware.org/874jjzzqc2.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net>
>> "libgomp: Consider '--with-build-sysroot=[...]' for target libraries' build-tree testing (instead of build-time 'CC' etc.) [PR91884, PR109951]".
>> OK to push the attached
>> "libffi: Consider '--with-build-sysroot=[...]' for target libraries' build-tree testing (instead of build-time 'CC' etc.) [PR109951]"?
OK (patch didn't appear inline, but hopefully you've got enough context 
to know it's the libffi bits getting ACK'd).

jeff