osxcross icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
osxcross copied to clipboard

Support for xcrun --show-sdk-platform-version

Open emabee opened this issue 11 months ago • 4 comments

xcrun has a new option --show-sdk-platform-version which is currently not supported by the respective wrapper in osxcross.

Ring, which is a foundational cryptographic library in rust, uses this option in its build script. Due to that, cross-builds for projects that use ring, e.g. via the support for TLS, fail.

Is it possible to add support for this option? The effort should be moderate, but the impact would be really significant.

Thanks a lot in advance!

  cargo:rustc-env=RING_CORE_PREFIX=ring_core_0_17_8_
  OPT_LEVEL = Some("3")
  TARGET = Some("x86_64-apple-darwin")
  HOST = Some("x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu")
  cargo:rerun-if-env-changed=CC_x86_64-apple-darwin
  CC_x86_64-apple-darwin = None
  cargo:rerun-if-env-changed=CC_x86_64_apple_darwin
  CC_x86_64_apple_darwin = None
  cargo:rerun-if-env-changed=TARGET_CC
  TARGET_CC = Some("clang")
  cargo:rerun-if-env-changed=CRATE_CC_NO_DEFAULTS
  CRATE_CC_NO_DEFAULTS = None
  DEBUG = Some("false")
  cargo:warning=running: "xcrun" "--show-sdk-platform-version" "--sdk" "macosx"
  cargo:warning=osxcross: error: xcrun: unknown argument: '--show-sdk-platform-version'
  cargo:warning=exit status: 2

emabee avatar Mar 21 '24 09:03 emabee

I have the exact same issue @tpoechtrager

Timwun avatar Mar 21 '24 10:03 Timwun

diff --git a/wrapper/programs/xcrun.cpp b/wrapper/programs/xcrun.cpp
index df20157..ad462e1 100644
--- a/wrapper/programs/xcrun.cpp
+++ b/wrapper/programs/xcrun.cpp
@@ -247,6 +247,7 @@ int xcrun(int argc, char **argv, Target &target) {
     {"run", run, 1},
     {"show-sdk-path", showSDKPath},
     {"show-sdk-version", showSDKVersion},
+    {"show-sdk-platform-version", showSDKVersion},
     {"show-sdk-platform-path", showPlatformPath}
   }};

Does that fix the issue?

tpoechtrager avatar Mar 22 '24 12:03 tpoechtrager

Yes, this should fix the issue IMO. :)

Timwun avatar Mar 22 '24 12:03 Timwun

For now definitely, as both commands do return the same value currently. It's unclear when (in future?) different values would be expected. For now the fix seems the best we can get. Thanks!

emabee avatar Mar 25 '24 11:03 emabee