From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:50604) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SE1aM-0001La-Lu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:55:31 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SE1aK-0000hz-UW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:55:30 -0400 Received: from mo-p00-ob.rzone.de ([81.169.146.162]:49580) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SE1aK-0000hv-LT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:55:28 -0400 Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:55:24 +0200 From: Olaf Hering Message-ID: <20120331165524.GA26203@aepfle.de> References: <20120330152436.GA31016@aepfle.de> <4F772590.2000603@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qemu/configure: fix CFLAGS handling for i386 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Erik Blake , Andreas =?utf-8?Q?F=C3=A4rber?= , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Sat, Mar 31, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 31 March 2012 16:41, Andreas Färber wrote: > > This is the only usage of += outside Makefile fragments, so I wonder if > > its use may have been by accident. Is it safe in a POSIX context? > > Or should we better use CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -march=486"? > > For QEMU_CFLAGS we use the pattern QEMU_CFLAGS="-options $QEMU_CFLAGS" > > to allow overriding options. > > For that matter, should this be setting QEMU_CFLAGS instead of > CFLAGS? I have to say I'm not entirely sure what the difference > is... I havent looked into qemu build internals, but there is most likely a concept of HOST_TOOLS_CFLAGS and TARGET_CFLAGS in qemus Makefiles. Olaf From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olaf Hering Subject: Re: [PATCH] qemu/configure: fix CFLAGS handling for i386 Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:55:24 +0200 Message-ID: <20120331165524.GA26203@aepfle.de> References: <20120330152436.GA31016@aepfle.de> <4F772590.2000603@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org To: Peter Maydell Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Erik Blake , Andreas =?utf-8?Q?F=C3=A4rber?= , qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Sat, Mar 31, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 31 March 2012 16:41, Andreas Färber wrote: > > This is the only usage of += outside Makefile fragments, so I wonder if > > its use may have been by accident. Is it safe in a POSIX context? > > Or should we better use CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -march=486"? > > For QEMU_CFLAGS we use the pattern QEMU_CFLAGS="-options $QEMU_CFLAGS" > > to allow overriding options. > > For that matter, should this be setting QEMU_CFLAGS instead of > CFLAGS? I have to say I'm not entirely sure what the difference > is... I havent looked into qemu build internals, but there is most likely a concept of HOST_TOOLS_CFLAGS and TARGET_CFLAGS in qemus Makefiles. Olaf