Skip to content

Add option to enable Linux cross builds for jit-format. #379

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

c272
Copy link

@c272 c272 commented Aug 17, 2023

Currently, when jit-format attempts to build a fresh version of compile-commands.json on Linux, it will always attempt a cross build, regardless of whether this is accurate for the host system. This currently breaks our internal formatting CI, as there is no way to disable this with an option/configuration flag.

This patch adds an option to enable cross builds when on Linux, rather than defaulting to always building with -cross.

I think this will likely break the current .NET CI though, as viewing the prior patch which introduced this argument indicates this was a quick fix to unblock CI after it moved to using rootfs on Mariner, requiring -cross. If this patch is applied, --linux-cross would have to be passed.

Currently, when jit-format attempts to build a fresh version of
compile-commands.json on Linux, it will always attempt a cross
build, regardless of whether this is accurate for the host system.

This patch adds an option to enable cross builds when on Linux,
rather than defaulting to always building with -cross.
@a74nh
Copy link

a74nh commented Aug 22, 2023

This bug is currently a little annoying as we (Arm) build everything on the target machines - we do no cross building at all. So, it's currently awkward to run the format checking test.

@BruceForstall
Copy link
Contributor

@dotnet/jit-contrib

@BruceForstall
Copy link
Contributor

I've written a fix that makes "--cross" a required parameter on platforms that need it (like is done here), and also fixed the CI system:

#380
dotnet/runtime#92751

I'm going to close this in favor of those PRs.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants