From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: [i2c-tools][PATCH] honor CROSS_COMPILE Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:26:08 +0100 Message-ID: <20110110152608.536de8e7@endymion.delvare> References: <1294426874-24973-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <20110108192345.GB4045@pengutronix.de> <4D28C9D5.8050401@ti.com> <20110108210130.GC4045@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110108210130.GC4045-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Wolfram Sang Cc: Nishanth Menon , linux-i2c List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 8 Jan 2011 22:01:30 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 02:32:21PM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote: > > Wolfram Sang wrote, on 01/08/2011 01:23 PM: > > >Then again, the vast majority of userspace-projects do not use CROSS_COMPILE. > > >Build systems like ptxdist and buildroot have done fine with overriding CC so > > >far. I don't see much gain in that addition. > > > > > The same is true for CROSS_COMPILE as well.. since the patch does > > still allow CC to be over-ridden (as was the previous behavior), why > > not add CROSS_COMPILE as well considering folks who could be cross > > compiling just i2ctools without using buildroot and the likes? > > You can override CC even without a build-system :) I would sum it up like this: > On the positive side you could call it "more flexible", on the negative side > you could call it "redundant". I wouldn't pick it up, but I surely have no > strong feelings about it. It is up to Jean, after all. I don't have a strong opinion on this either. But I don't get the point of setting values for AS, LD, AR etc. when they don't seem to be used anywhere. And STRIP is set too, but "strip" hard-coded in tools/Module.mk, so I fail to see how that would work. What am I missing? -- Jean Delvare