-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3k
tools-exporters! - Move to Toolchain-polymorphic makefiles #2577
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
Conversation
382ed4a
to
fa0b1f0
Compare
@theotherjimmy how about a rebase? |
🎉 |
fa0b1f0
to
1fb449c
Compare
re-re-based. |
/morph test |
/morph export-build |
Result: FAILUREYour command has finished executing! Here's what you wrote!
|
Result: SUCCESSYour command has finished executing! Here's what you wrote!
Outputmbed Build Number: 841 All builds and test passed! |
Just a handful of IAR failures left, not a regression but probably missing definitions or simple fix-ups for a future patch
|
After submitting your PR three new gcc_arm templates appeared: May you have a look at these too, please. |
These will be taken care of without the need for extra templates. Thanks for the heads up @ohagendorf |
But they can be deleted to clean up the export folder ... |
OH did I not delete them? I'll get right on that. |
Should eliminate any space-in-path issues
1fb449c
to
e507b9e
Compare
@ohagendorf, I did a rebase to remove the templates you mentioned in the appropriate commits. |
This creates three new exporters:
There is also a bunch of consolodation work that significantly reduces the difference between the python build system and the makefiles. Further, I also significantly reduced the number of extrainious templates by allowing templates resolution to fall back from the target name, to the
extra-labels
, and finally to the toolchain-specific makefile.This PR must be merged after #2245It was merged!