You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When testing with a dummy configure script, I can see that the following variables are set correctly: CC, CXX, AR, LD
However these values are left blank, while they are set in tools/building.py: NM, LDSHARED, RANLIB, EMSCRIPTEN_TOOLS, HOST_CC, HOST_CXX, HOST_CFLAGS, HOST_CXXFLAGS, PKG_CONFIG_LIBDIR, PKG_CONFIG_PATH, EMSCRIPTEN, PATH, ACLOCAL_PATH, CROSS_COMPILE.
Is this intentional? I would have expected that the toolchain sets up Bazel in a way that running bare configure is the same as emconfigure.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It's not quite intentional. The toolchain is much older than github commit history would lead you to believe. When it was set up, it was with a much older version of bazel, and we simply did what we needed to to get it working.
Are you seeing specific errors because these are unset?
When testing with a dummy configure script, I can see that the following variables are set correctly:
CC
,CXX
,AR
,LD
However these values are left blank, while they are set in tools/building.py:
NM
,LDSHARED
,RANLIB
,EMSCRIPTEN_TOOLS
,HOST_CC
,HOST_CXX
,HOST_CFLAGS
,HOST_CXXFLAGS
,PKG_CONFIG_LIBDIR
,PKG_CONFIG_PATH
,EMSCRIPTEN
,PATH
,ACLOCAL_PATH
,CROSS_COMPILE
.Is this intentional? I would have expected that the toolchain sets up Bazel in a way that running bare
configure
is the same asemconfigure
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: