Skip to content
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

x264: unset AS for aarch32 as well #86574

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

x264: unset AS for aarch32 as well #86574

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

sorki
Copy link
Member

@sorki sorki commented May 2, 2020

Motivation for this change

Fixes armv7l build.

Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS linux)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • [] Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
  • Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

Checked with nix-build --check -A pkgs.x264

@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ stdenv.mkDerivation rec {

outputs = [ "out" "lib" "dev" ];

preConfigure = lib.optionalString (stdenv.buildPlatform.isx86_64 || stdenv.hostPlatform.isi686) ''
preConfigure = lib.optionalString (stdenv.buildPlatform.isx86_64 || stdenv.hostPlatform.isi686 || stdenv.hostPlatform.isAarch32) ''
# `AS' is set to the binutils assembler, but we need nasm
unset AS
'' + lib.optionalString (stdenv.hostPlatform.isAarch64 || stdenv.hostPlatform.isAarch32) ''
Copy link
Member

@prusnak prusnak May 2, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we remove stdenv.hostPlatform.isAarch32 from this code branch if it is already handled above?

Or is that intended?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks like it's not even needed, I've picked this from older tree and didn't notice it was fixed few lines bellow as I didn't get any conflicts :) Good catch!

@sorki
Copy link
Member Author

sorki commented May 2, 2020

Already fixed in 7c75c128863e.

@sorki sorki closed this May 2, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants