This fixes a issue when compiling an assembler file for the ESP32 ulp. gcc was not provided the list of include directories. It seems this is caused by a regression introduced with https://github.com/esp-rs/embuild/commit/c0e52801875b244e1279a6680f22a6a10f41dfad. The include directories are provided through the env variable DEP_ESP_IDF_EMBUILD_C_INCLUDE_ARGS which is further processed (unescaped). The change introduced with the above commit was that the include paths are provided with a -isystem prefix. The unescape function was not modified to cope with that change which resulted in an empty include dir list. The PR addresses this issue.
Remarks:
I don't understand why the following code is in line 228
This creates a gcc argument like this "-I" "-isystem/..." which I think is wrong. The "-I" is not required. I deleted the line.
I'm not sure what line 228-239 is doing, it seems that it will not be called, but there is a similar handling of the "-I" argument which might need to be removed as well.
I'm also unsure about line 247. Why removing the -I and later adding it in the way it is done in line 228
This fixes a issue when compiling an assembler file for the ESP32 ulp. gcc was not provided the list of include directories. It seems this is caused by a regression introduced with https://github.com/esp-rs/embuild/commit/c0e52801875b244e1279a6680f22a6a10f41dfad. The include directories are provided through the env variable
DEP_ESP_IDF_EMBUILD_C_INCLUDE_ARGS
which is further processed (unescaped). The change introduced with the above commit was that the include paths are provided with a-isystem
prefix. The unescape function was not modified to cope with that change which resulted in an empty include dir list. The PR addresses this issue.Remarks: I don't understand why the following code is in line
228
This creates a
gcc
argument like this"-I" "-isystem/..."
which I think is wrong. The"-I"
is not required. I deleted the line.I'm not sure what line
228-239
is doing, it seems that it will not be called, but there is a similar handling of the"-I"
argument which might need to be removed as well.I'm also unsure about line
247
. Why removing the-I
and later adding it in the way it is done in line228