make: drop all system tests

make: drop all system tests

Rather than probing for ARFLAGS at gyp time, just always use "crsT".
Linux and Android (the two platforms that used ARFLAGS) both support
thin archives, so there is no need to test for it.

BUG=gyp:250
Committed: https://code.google.com/p/gyp/source/detail?r=1507

[Torne, 2012-09-25 10:30:48]

Hi Evan, I've tested this on Linux and Android and it works fine. Mac is not
affected because it doesn't use either of the alink commands modified. It's the
same change as https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9414019 except it
hardcodes crsT instead of crs.

[Torne, 2012-09-26 12:43:50]

Nico, can you comment on this?

[Nico, 2012-09-26 12:59:16]

Thin archives weren't supported on all linuxes when we added it. How many
distros did you test?

[Torne, 2012-09-26 13:13:37]

On 2012/09/26 12:59:16, Nico wrote:
> Thin archives weren't supported on all linuxes when we added it. How many
> distros did you test?

Just my workstation (ubuntu 10.04). I thought we couldn't build without thin
archives any more on Linux.. that was why the previous CL got reverted that
hardcoded 'crs'.

Thin archive support was added in binutils 2.19, released in late 2008. Even
debian stable has it :)

[Nico, 2012-09-26 13:37:49]

On 2012/09/26 13:13:37, Torne wrote:
> On 2012/09/26 12:59:16, Nico wrote:
> > Thin archives weren't supported on all linuxes when we added it. How many
> > distros did you test?
> 
> Just my workstation (ubuntu 10.04). I thought we couldn't build without thin
> archives any more on Linux.. that was why the previous CL got reverted that
> hardcoded 'crs'.

Which previous CL? Thin archives should be a performance-only thing as far as I
understand, and shouldn't change behavior. Hm, I guess 32bit linkers could
out-of-memory without it.

> Thin archive support was added in binutils 2.19, released in late 2008. Even
> debian stable has it :)

ok lgtm, let's see what breaks :-)

(From the bug: """Skia is interested in building a static library that can be
linked against outside of gyp.  We need a way to optionally build a target as a
"fat" archive.  Right now, it looks like there's no way around the hard-coded -T
flag.  Is there, or will there be, a workaround?  Making local changes doesn't
cut it.""" -- but I guess that doesn't get worse with this CL)

[Torne, 2012-09-26 13:42:42]

On 2012/09/26 13:37:49, Nico wrote:
> On 2012/09/26 13:13:37, Torne wrote:
> > On 2012/09/26 12:59:16, Nico wrote:
> > > Thin archives weren't supported on all linuxes when we added it. How many
> > > distros did you test?
> > 
> > Just my workstation (ubuntu 10.04). I thought we couldn't build without thin
> > archives any more on Linux.. that was why the previous CL got reverted that
> > hardcoded 'crs'.
> 
> Which previous CL? Thin archives should be a performance-only thing as far as
I
> understand, and shouldn't change behavior. Hm, I guess 32bit linkers could
> out-of-memory without it.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9414019 was the previous CL by evan,
reverted (also by evan) in r1208 because "Chrome builds rely on thin archives."

> > Thin archive support was added in binutils 2.19, released in late 2008. Even
> > debian stable has it :)
> 
> ok lgtm, let's see what breaks :-)

OK, I'll land this and then make another CL to roll it into chromium?

> (From the bug: """Skia is interested in building a static library that can be
> linked against outside of gyp.  We need a way to optionally build a target as
a
> "fat" archive.  Right now, it looks like there's no way around the hard-coded
-T
> flag.  Is there, or will there be, a workaround?  Making local changes doesn't
> cut it.""" -- but I guess that doesn't get worse with this CL)

Yeah, you can't actually configure it with or without this, and I don't
desperately want to solve that one right now (I want thin archive support on
android because our builders are having disk and performance issues).

[Nico, 2012-09-26 13:45:26]

On 2012/09/26 13:42:42, Torne wrote:
> On 2012/09/26 13:37:49, Nico wrote:
> > On 2012/09/26 13:13:37, Torne wrote:
> > > On 2012/09/26 12:59:16, Nico wrote:
> > > > Thin archives weren't supported on all linuxes when we added it. How
many
> > > > distros did you test?
> > > 
> > > Just my workstation (ubuntu 10.04). I thought we couldn't build without
thin
> > > archives any more on Linux.. that was why the previous CL got reverted
that
> > > hardcoded 'crs'.
> > 
> > Which previous CL? Thin archives should be a performance-only thing as far
as
> I
> > understand, and shouldn't change behavior. Hm, I guess 32bit linkers could
> > out-of-memory without it.
> 
> https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9414019 was the previous CL by evan,
> reverted (also by evan) in r1208 because "Chrome builds rely on thin
archives."
> 
> > > Thin archive support was added in binutils 2.19, released in late 2008.
Even
> > > debian stable has it :)
> > 
> > ok lgtm, let's see what breaks :-)
> 
> OK, I'll land this and then make another CL to roll it into chromium?

sgtm

> 
> > (From the bug: """Skia is interested in building a static library that can
be
> > linked against outside of gyp.  We need a way to optionally build a target
as
> a
> > "fat" archive.  Right now, it looks like there's no way around the
hard-coded
> -T
> > flag.  Is there, or will there be, a workaround?  Making local changes
doesn't
> > cut it.""" -- but I guess that doesn't get worse with this CL)
> 
> Yeah, you can't actually configure it with or without this, and I don't
> desperately want to solve that one right now (I want thin archive support on
> android because our builders are having disk and performance issues).