Re: [PATCH] tools lib api: respect CROSS_COMPILE for the linker

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>]

Em Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 08:50:42AM -0400, Steven Rostedt escreveu:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 08:10:10 +0100
> Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 05:40:30PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Em Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 09:08:52AM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:  
> > > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 02:38:52PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:  
> > > > > Em Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:16:23PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf escreveu:  
> > > > > > So 'allow-override' would probably be a good option.  
> > >   
> > > > > Humm, my preference is to make tools/ look like the kernel, and the
> > > > > kernel doesn't use that allow-override thing, right? So perhaps add what
> > > > > is missing to make it look exactly like the kernel and then ditch this
> > > > > allow-override thing?  
> > >   
> > > > Steven explained his reason for allow-override in the comment above it,
> > > > please make sure the new solution follows that  
> > > 
> > > Sure, and I'm no make guru, but what puzzles me is why isn't this
> > > required in:
> > > 
> > > [acme@jouet linux]$ grep -w ^CC Makefile 
> > > CC		= $(CROSS_COMPILE)gcc
> > > [acme@jouet linux]$  
> > 
> > Steve has special requirements I guess ;-) CC-ed
> > 
> 
> I just copied what I had in trace-cmd. David Sharp is the one that
> added that code.
> 
>  Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1299791491-1805-1-git-send-email-dhsharp@google.com

David, so, what was the usecase for that? Something we can try to
reproduce so that we can check if the kernel solution covers your
specific case?

- Arnaldo