From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:39:38 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Report from the Buildroot Meeting in Berlin In-Reply-To: (Vicente Olivert Riera's message of "Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:19:30 +0100") References: <20161019221035.2350c181@free-electrons.com> <874m42lztg.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <87ziltly45.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Vicente" == Vicente Olivert Riera writes: >> If that is the only problem, couldn't we just add -mno-msa to the >> kernel/bootloader if _MIPS_MSA is enabled? > That would be a solution, filter (or append -mno-* counterparts) to the > flags when building kernel or bootloaders. The thing is we would need to > do this for other optimization options (not just MSA) and architectures. > Do we want to do that? It looks better and cleaner to have a variable > that holds flags suitable for building packages but not for building > kernels/bootloaders. I think that's what Arnout means with the > TARGET_EXTRA_CFLAGS. Do we expect to have a lot of such new flags in the future? We already do something similar for some of the arm specific flags (E.G. force -marm for stuff that cannot be built in thumb2 mode). I agree that it isn't very pretty, but again it is a tradeoff between how complicated we want to make the toolchain wrapper. -- Venlig hilsen, Peter Korsgaard