From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnout Vandecappelle Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 08:11:24 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 1/2] package: Makefile.in: Add target compilation flags for NOMMU architecture. In-Reply-To: <20130322152920.59b74891@skate> References: <1363942902-6045-1-git-send-email-sonic.adi@gmail.com> <20130322152920.59b74891@skate> Message-ID: <514FF89C.3060408@mind.be> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 22/03/13 15:29, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Dear Sonic Zhang, > > On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:01:41 +0800, Sonic Zhang wrote: [snip] >> +ifneq ($(BR2_USE_MMU), y) >> +TARGET_CFLAGS += -D__NOMMU__ >> +endif > > I'm still not entirely happy with that. This define is completely > non-standard, I am not sure we want to have this at the global level. > autotools-based packages should be fixed to check if fork() is > available or not. For other packages, this special flag can be > introduced on a per-package basis. But it's true that maybe a good > number of packages will need that. Not sure here. What do others think? Since this is a non-standard flag, it would go together with some patch that adds the possibility of NOMMU builds. I would say that it's a good idea to have an explicit extra -DNOMMU in those .mk files. As to the large number of packages using it: it should anyway only be used for make-based packages (autotools and cmake should have different ways to detect NOMMU). So the number of packages using it wouldn't be that large. And finally, that do this that we have already (irda-utils and portmap) call it NO_FORK. Regards, Arnout [snip] -- Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500 Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle GPG fingerprint: 7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F