Opened on 04/10/18 at 05:59:45
Closed on 12/19/19 at 08:14:20
#3387 closed defect (wontfix)
Add subdir-objects to automake flags
Reported by: | Chris Johns | Owned by: | Sebastian Huber |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 5.1 |
Component: | build | Version: | 5 |
Severity: | normal | Keywords: | |
Cc: | Blocked By: | ||
Blocking: |
Description (last modified by Sebastian Huber)
This will be fixed by the new build system, see #3818.
Change History (15)
comment:1 Changed on 04/11/18 at 01:58:07 by Chris Johns <chrisj@…>
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | assigned → closed |
comment:2 follow-up: 4 Changed on 04/11/18 at 05:21:30 by Sebastian Huber
I am not sure, but I think this breaks the BSP build. We have now for example:
pwd sparc-rtems5/c/erc32/lib/libbsp/sparc/erc32 make clean test -z "" || rm -f test -z "librtemsbsp.a" || rm -f librtemsbsp.a rm -f *.o rm -f ../../../../../../bsps/shared/*.o rm -f ../../../../../../bsps/shared/cache/*.o rm -f ../../../../../../bsps/shared/dev/display/*.o rm -f ../../../../../../bsps/shared/dev/flash/*.o rm -f ../../../../../../bsps/shared/dev/i2c/*.o rm -f ../../../../../../bsps/shared/dev/ide/*.o rm -f ../../../../../../bsps/shared/dev/rtc/*.o rm -f ../../../../../../bsps/shared/dev/serial/*.o rm -f ../../../../../../bsps/shared/irq/*.o rm -f ../../../../../../bsps/shared/net/*.o rm -f ../../../../../../bsps/shared/shmdr/*.o rm -f ../../../../../../bsps/shared/start/*.o rm -f ../../shared/*.o rm -f ../shared/*.o rm -f ../shared/irq/*.o rm -f ../shared/startup/*.o rm -f clock/*.o rm -f console/*.o rm -f erc32sonic/*.o rm -f gnatsupp/*.o rm -f startup/*.o rm -f timer/*.o
This assumes that the build and source tree have the same layout. However, this is not the case. For example:
pwd sparc-rtems5/c/erc32/lib/libbsp/sparc/erc32 ls ../../../../../.. at697f bsps c erc32 gr712rc gr740 leon2 leon3 ut699 ut700
The critical issues is that the bsps directory is not BSP-specific.
comment:3 Changed on 04/11/18 at 05:21:40 by Sebastian Huber
Resolution: | fixed |
---|---|
Status: | closed → reopened |
comment:4 Changed on 04/11/18 at 06:04:13 by Chris Johns
Replying to Sebastian Huber:
I am not sure, but I think this breaks the BSP build.
I think it exposes a bug in the BSP Makefile support. Object files must stay contained under the BSP directory. Why does the cpukit not have a problem?
comment:5 Changed on 04/11/18 at 06:07:22 by Sebastian Huber
The problem is that we are right in between a move of the BSP sources from one tree to another.
comment:6 follow-up: 8 Changed on 04/11/18 at 06:11:10 by Chris Johns
Will the move clean up the build tree and avoid this issue once the move is done?
If so the only thing that is broken is building more than one BSP at a time. Is that a problem for you?
comment:7 Changed on 04/11/18 at 06:21:34 by Sebastian Huber
To finish the move will need a couple of weeks (more than four I guess). Do I have to use the BSP builder to build the BSPs?
comment:8 Changed on 04/11/18 at 06:41:40 by Chris Johns
Replying to Chris Johns:
Will the move clean up the build tree and avoid this issue once the move is done?
Nice, I am looking forward to this happening.
If so the only thing that is broken is building more than one BSP at a time. Is that a problem for you?
That is one way.
Just thought of a simpler solution that may work. What if you remove the subdir-objects
option from the just the effected Makefile.am file(s)? This leave the parts of the build tree that are fixed ready and as you fix the broken parts the option can be added. It also lets automake-1.16.1 indicate we have a problem in the areas we have not fixed.
Does that work?
comment:10 Changed on 04/12/18 at 09:14:04 by Sebastian Huber
Owner: | changed from Chris Johns to Sebastian Huber |
---|---|
Status: | reopened → assigned |
comment:11 Changed on 04/20/18 at 13:31:12 by Sebastian Huber <sebastian.huber@…>
In 234f0a2d/rtems:
comment:12 Changed on 12/12/19 at 23:13:52 by Joel Sherrill
Is this ticket "won't fix" with the move to the new build system?
comment:13 follow-up: 14 Changed on 12/13/19 at 06:05:12 by Sebastian Huber
Yes, provided we move to the new build system.
comment:14 Changed on 12/13/19 at 12:53:29 by Chris Johns
Replying to Sebastian Huber:
Yes, provided we move to the new build system.
I have been using the build system when doing some work week and I am now addicted.
I would like us to resolve the tickets we have to clear 5.0 then branch the repos. I can then prepare a release. This would release master for the merge the new build system.
comment:15 Changed on 12/19/19 at 08:14:20 by Sebastian Huber
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|---|
Resolution: | → wontfix |
Status: | assigned → closed |
In aa567bc1/rtems: