From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52593)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1iRkgi-00052q-4f
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Nov 2019 17:19:05 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1iRkgh-0004Ry-4b
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Nov 2019 17:19:04 -0500
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:57080)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
 (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
 id 1iRkgg-0004RZ-On
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Nov 2019 17:19:03 -0500
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1iRkgg-0006pP-Hf
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Nov 2019 17:19:02 -0500
Subject: [bug#37924] [PATCH] gnu: Fix make-gcc-libc
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.37924.B37924.157290591826205@debbugs.gnu.org>
From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
References: <hSjH-FjbLGYW5vPHJ-VSp_Wgss1FA56r1qXDALf_s6GqNauS0PQJ3qoSA6rLju7GTKhozjqHAxZaXRXd1RnHGYnD6Bsl8O40OEJpWkYRJDs=@carldong.me>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 23:18:28 +0100
In-Reply-To: <hSjH-FjbLGYW5vPHJ-VSp_Wgss1FA56r1qXDALf_s6GqNauS0PQJ3qoSA6rLju7GTKhozjqHAxZaXRXd1RnHGYnD6Bsl8O40OEJpWkYRJDs=@carldong.me>
 (Carl Dong's message of "Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:40:19 +0000")
Message-ID: <87y2wv4763.fsf@gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
List-Id: <guix-patches.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-patches>,
 <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-patches@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-patches>,
 <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-patches" <guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org>
To: Carl Dong <contact@carldong.me>
Cc: 37924@debbugs.gnu.org

Hi Carl,

Carl Dong <contact@carldong.me> skribis:

> Reviewers, would like some insight into whether it's okay to remove the
> FLAGS_FOR_TARGET. From what I can tell it comes from CROSS-GCC-ARGUMENTS =
in (gnu
> packages cross-base) which might not be needed here since we're not
> cross-building. I've tested this toolchain built without FLAGS_FOR_TARGET=
 and it
> _seems_ to work fine.

I think it wouldn=E2=80=99t hurt to keep FLAGS_FOR_TARGET, but like you wri=
te,
it seems to be for cross-compilation only, so I guess it=E2=80=99s OK to re=
move
it here since =E2=80=98make-gcc-libc=E2=80=99 is meant to build native tool=
chains
anyway.

> Until now the following wouldn't build:
>
> (use-modules (gnu packages commencement)
>              (gnu packages gcc)
>              (gnu packages base))
>
> (make-gcc-libc gcc-9 glibc-2.27)
>
> * gnu/packages/base.scm (make-gcc-libc)[phases]: Add environment
> variables to place the target libc on the system header search path.
> [make-flags]: Remove unncessary FLAGS_FOR_TARGET.
> [native-inputs]: Construct in a way that doesn't require emptying
> inputs.

LGTM, thank you!

Ludo=E2=80=99.