From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 09:58:46 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] pkg-infra: remove the call from XXXTARGETS In-Reply-To: <1336857045-10679-1-git-send-email-arnout@mind.be> References: <1336857045-10679-1-git-send-email-arnout@mind.be> Message-ID: <20120514095846.7d206d16@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Le Sat, 12 May 2012 23:10:44 +0200, "Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind)" a ?crit : > Replace $(call XXXTARGETS,host) with $(XXXTARGETS_HOST) and > $(call XXXTARGETS) with $(XXXTARGETS). > > Also includes documentation update, but not for buildroot.html. > > This brings the time for 'make -qp' (which is used by bash-completion) > down from 1.85s to 1.35s on my laptop. I haven't tested yet, but I'm fine with the principle. I am just wondering whether HOST_AUTOTARGETS wouldn't be better than AUTOTARGETS_HOST for the name of the macro. Or maybe, since we're renaming everything in this patch it's time to think about a better name for these macros GENPACKAGE / HOST_GENPACKAGE GENPKG / HOST_GENPKG genpackage / host-genpackage genpkg / host-genpkg autotoolspackage / host-autotoolspackage autotoolspkg / host-autotoolspkg cmakepkg / host-cmakepkg autotools-package / host-autotools-package generic-package / host-generic-package autotools-pkg / host-autotools-pkg Or maybe *TARGETS is just fine, as we have today. Thoughts? Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com