emo/busybox
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

scripts/trylink: remove $CPPFLAGS

Browse Source 
We don't use it in final link, should not use it in check_FOO then.
This uncovered a logic bug in glibc check...

Signed-off-by: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>
This commit is contained in:
Denys Vlasenko 2015-10-20 16:40:43 +02:00
parent 5134010d88
commit 58d0e20ad0
1 changed files with 3 additions and 3 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

6
scripts/trylink
View File

@ -51,10 +51,10 @@ check_cc() {
echo "int main(int argc,char**argv){return argv?argc:0;}" >"$tempname".c echo "int main(int argc,char**argv){return argv?argc:0;}" >"$tempname".c
# Can use "-o /dev/null", but older gcc tend to *unlink it* on failure! :( # Can use "-o /dev/null", but older gcc tend to *unlink it* on failure! :(
# Was using "-xc /dev/null", but we need a valid C program. # Was using "-xc /dev/null", but we need a valid C program.
# "eval" is needed because CFLAGS can contain # "eval" may be needed is CFLAGS can contain
# '... -D"BB_VER=KBUILD_STR(1.N.M)" ...' # '... -D"BB_VER=KBUILD_STR(1.N.M)" ...'
# and we need shell to process quotes! # and we need shell to process quotes!
eval $CC $CPPFLAGS $CFLAGS $1 "$tempname".c -o "$tempname" >/dev/null 2>&1 $CC $CFLAGS $1 "$tempname".c -o "$tempname" >/dev/null 2>&1
r=$? r=$?
rm -f "$tempname" "$tempname".c "$tempname".o rm -f "$tempname" "$tempname".c "$tempname".o
return $r return $r
@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ check_libc_is_glibc() {
syntax error here syntax error here
#endif #endif
" >"$tempname".c " >"$tempname".c
$CC $CPPFLAGS $CFLAGS "$tempname".c -c -o "$tempname".o >/dev/null 2>&1 ! $CC $CFLAGS "$tempname".c -c -o "$tempname".o >/dev/null 2>&1
r=$? r=$?
rm -f "$tempname" "$tempname".c "$tempname".o rm -f "$tempname" "$tempname".c "$tempname".o
return $r return $r