@GrahamcOfBorg build pkgsCross.aarch64-multiplatform.openexr

I think I see what's going wrong here. On my machine, I had binfmt_misc support for the platform I was trying to compile to, so I was able to run the ./b44ExpLogTable fine. However, on ofBorg, it is trying to run it without binfmt_misc. So we need to compile part of this project on the host platform, to generate all the sources. I'll see what I can do.

@Synthetica9 FYI you mean "So we need to compile part of this project on the build platform, to generate all the sources."

@GrahamcOfBorg build pkgsCross.aarch64-multiplatform.openexr

I might take a look at using $CC_FOR_BUILD for this. It's a bit lower tech solution that will work for non-linux.

I wonder if Linux has a way to disable binfmt in a process? That would help avoid cases like this.

OK try this:

diff --git a/OpenEXR/IlmImf/Makefile.am b/OpenEXR/IlmImf/Makefile.am
index c047b1e..c341eee 100644
--- a/OpenEXR/IlmImf/Makefile.am
+++ b/OpenEXR/IlmImf/Makefile.am
@@ -196,14 +196,14 @@ INCLUDES = @ILMBASE_CXXFLAGS@ \
 
 CLEANFILES = b44ExpLogTable b44ExpLogTable.h dwaLookups dwaLookups.h
 
-b44ExpLogTable_SOURCES = b44ExpLogTable.cpp
-b44ExpLogTable_LDADD = @ILMBASE_LDFLAGS@ $(ILMBASE_LIBS)
+b44ExpLogTable$(EXEEXT_FOR_BUILD): b44ExpLogTable.cpp
+       $(CXX_FOR_BUILD) $(CXXFLAGS_FOR_BUILD) $< -o $@
 
 b44ExpLogTable.h: b44ExpLogTable
        ./b44ExpLogTable > b44ExpLogTable.h
 
-dwaLookups_SOURCES = dwaLookups.cpp
-dwaLookups_LDADD = @ILMBASE_LDFLAGS@ $(ILMBASE_LIBS)
+dwaLookups$(EXEEXT_FOR_BUILD): dwaLookups.cpp
+       $(CXX_FOR_BUILD) $(CXXFLAGS_FOR_BUILD) $< -o $@
 
 dwaLookups.h: dwaLookups
        ./dwaLookups > dwaLookups.h
diff --git a/OpenEXR/configure.ac b/OpenEXR/configure.ac
index 067f9d0..5a9c4dd 100644
--- a/OpenEXR/configure.ac
+++ b/OpenEXR/configure.ac
@@ -30,6 +30,8 @@ AC_PROG_CC
 AC_PROG_LN_S
 AC_PROG_LIBTOOL
 AC_PROG_MAKE_SET
+AX_CC_FOR_BUILD dnl for EXEEXT_FOR_BUILD not CC_FOR_BUILD
+AX_PROG_CXX_FOR_BUILD
 
 dnl
 dnl PKGCONFIG preparations

which I through together (no testing) based off of 694b4d2 using AcademySoftwareFoundation/openexr#221. I think ilmbase will need to be a nativeBuildInput because of a #include <half.h>.

If that works, please submit upstream! Maybe include the earlier patch with EXEEXT_FOR_BUILD too in the PR for consistency and to/from windows support (i.e. where EXEEXT`` and EXEEXT_FOR_BUILD` would differ).

@Ericson2314

Looks promising, but I don't think I'm comfortable enough with Automake to make it work.

Makefile:1332: warning: overriding recipe for target 'b44ExpLogTable'
Makefile:751: warning: ignoring old recipe for target 'b44ExpLogTable'
Makefile:1338: warning: overriding recipe for target 'dwaLookups'
Makefile:755: warning: ignoring old recipe for target 'dwaLookups'
make[1]: *** No rule to make target 'b44ExpLogTable.c', needed by 'b44ExpLogTable.o'.  Stop.
make[1]: Leaving directory '/build/openexr-2.3.0/IlmImf'
make: *** [Makefile:502: all-recursive] Error 1
note: keeping build directory '/tmp/nix-build-openexr-2.3.0.drv-8'
builder for '/nix/store/fnwxk8b7jmgzalb2wp8v12m4w8gigd5z-openexr-2.3.0.drv' failed with exit code 2
error: build of '/nix/store/fnwxk8b7jmgzalb2wp8v12m4w8gigd5z-openexr-2.3.0.drv' failed

I wonder if Linux has a way to disable binfmt in a process? That would help avoid cases like this.

I dug around for a bit, and it doesn't look like it. This might be worth filing a kernel feature request for.

@GrahamcOfBorg build pkgsCross.aarch64-multiplatform.openexr

I might take a look at using $CC_FOR_BUILD for this. It's a bit lower tech solution that will work for non-linux.

@Ericson2314 Would you mind merging this in the meantime? I couldn't get your solution to work, and this already better than the current situation.

@GrahamcOfBorg build openexr

AcademySoftwareFoundation/openexr#384 I got sucked in and then stuck. This is definitely good enough :).

BTW this sort of patch is the sort that really makes me doubt whether it's a good idea to support cross-compilation, because it adds considerable complexity and makes it harder to maintain/update the openexr package.

@edolstra I don't know how you can draw a general story about cross compilation support from this. Maybe openexr is a bridge to far, but other packages aren't? Then again, openexr has barely changed in years. Per the upcoming RFC, I think people have a right to rip out any per-package cross patch that interferes with something important for a high tier, so what's the practical damage then?

I'm basically finished making big infra overhauls for cross; it works now. If somebody else wants a package to work a take that as external demand, not my own dream, and try to assist them. I'm obviously biased, but I think the feature is pretty popular?

It's definitely ugly, but I would hope we can improve it over time. It is possible to write build script that work elegantly, openexr just doesn't. I meant to approve a025f85 not a347ec5.