From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Charles Coffing" Subject: Re: [PATCH] clean up CFLAGS Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:16:44 -0500 Message-ID: <44102AAA.D169.003C.0@novell.com> References: <441022BC.D169.003C.0@novell.com> <7b2382655a2fb46f17db47d57d745413@cl.cam.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <7b2382655a2fb46f17db47d57d745413@cl.cam.ac.uk> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2006 at 12:47 PM, in message <7b2382655a2fb46f17db47d57d745413@cl.cam.ac.uk>, Keir Fraser wrote:=20 > On 9 Mar 2006, at 19:42, Charles Coffing wrote: >=20 >> I've put some default CFLAGS (- Wall - O3) in Config.mk, and removed >> redundant flags from the Makefiles. I've also fixed a few places that >> didn't properly inherit CFLAGS from Config.mk (but not vmxassist or >> hvmloader; those ignore global defaults like before). Also, individual >> makefiles still add their own custom flags (- g, - Werror, - f*, etc) = just >> as before. >> >> Please apply to xen- unstable. >=20 > I'll take a look at applying some of these piecemeal. After a quick=20 > browse I see that the miniterm Makefile is broken (it is intended to = be=20 > built and installed on the external box, not the Xen box, so HOSTCC = is=20 > probably right for it but the potentially cross- compiling CC is=20 > definitely not), and the changes to vmxassist and hvmloader have no=20 > effect and I see no reason to prefer them over what is there already.=20 > No comment on the rest as yet... Ah, agreed on both counts. Regarding the change in vmxassist and hvmloader: I was being overly = cautious, setting CFLAGS to a non-empty string to be sure it wasn't = defaulted to something else, but indeed setting to an empty string as was = done before is sufficient. So I have thrown out the changes to both of = those Makefiles. nsplitd is to be treated the same as miniterm, correct? So you should = both of their respective patches. (When packaging, we of course would = build those things with the same flags, and for the same architecture, but = that is a patch I can carry separately .)