[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] testing: Build WHPX enabled binaries

From: Thomas Huth
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] testing: Build WHPX enabled binaries
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 10:10:31 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0

On 04/08/2020 09.42, Stefan Weil wrote:
> Am 04.08.20 um 09:23 schrieb Philippe Mathieu-Daudé:
>> On 8/4/20 8:55 AM, Stefan Weil wrote:
>>> Am 04.08.20 um 08:43 schrieb Thomas Huth:
>>>> On 03/08/2020 22.25, Stefan Weil wrote:
>>>>> We can add a CI pipeline on Microsoft infrastructure by using a GitHub
>>>>> action.
>>>> Sorry for being ignorant, but how does that solve the legal questions
>>>> just because it is running on GitHub instead of a different CI?
>>>>  Thomas
>>> Sorry, I though that would be clear by looking at the included shell script.
>>> The build does not use the Microsoft SDK. It gets the required header
>>> files from Mingw-w64. They added them in git master.

Great, thanks for the clarification!

>> Oh, so we can do that with GitLab too now, we don't need to rely on the
>> GitHub 'Actions' CI in particular, right?
> That's right. The build script was written for Ubuntu, so depending on
> the distribution used for GitLab CI it will need some modifications. If
> GitLab already has a recent Mingw-w64, it might be sufficient to fix the
> case of the header file names. Mingw-w64 uses winhvplatform.h while QEMU
> expects WinHvPlatform.h and so on. I used symbolic links to add the
> camel case filenames.

I'm currently working on a patch series for our gitlab-CI that uses our
containers to all possible kinds of cross-compiler builds (basically the
ones that we are doing on shippable.com so far), including the 32-bit
and 64-bit MinGW cross-compilation jobs. I can have a look whether I can
integrate these headers there!


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]