From 58d0e20ad00cc8a24f3485a363a5a51ab2387bdc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Denys Vlasenko Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:40:43 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] scripts/trylink: remove $CPPFLAGS We don't use it in final link, should not use it in check_FOO then. This uncovered a logic bug in glibc check... Signed-off-by: Denys Vlasenko --- scripts/trylink | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/scripts/trylink b/scripts/trylink index 26099976a..9132b3f76 100755 --- a/scripts/trylink +++ b/scripts/trylink @@ -51,10 +51,10 @@ check_cc() { echo "int main(int argc,char**argv){return argv?argc:0;}" >"$tempname".c # Can use "-o /dev/null", but older gcc tend to *unlink it* on failure! :( # Was using "-xc /dev/null", but we need a valid C program. - # "eval" is needed because CFLAGS can contain + # "eval" may be needed is CFLAGS can contain # '... -D"BB_VER=KBUILD_STR(1.N.M)" ...' # and we need shell to process quotes! - eval $CC $CPPFLAGS $CFLAGS $1 "$tempname".c -o "$tempname" >/dev/null 2>&1 + $CC $CFLAGS $1 "$tempname".c -o "$tempname" >/dev/null 2>&1 r=$? rm -f "$tempname" "$tempname".c "$tempname".o return $r @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ check_libc_is_glibc() { syntax error here #endif " >"$tempname".c - $CC $CPPFLAGS $CFLAGS "$tempname".c -c -o "$tempname".o >/dev/null 2>&1 + ! $CC $CFLAGS "$tempname".c -c -o "$tempname".o >/dev/null 2>&1 r=$? rm -f "$tempname" "$tempname".c "$tempname".o return $r