From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Darren Hart Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] rt-tests: Support user supplied CFLAGS and LDFLAGS Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:10:48 -0700 Message-ID: <4F691C88.2020907@linux.intel.com> References: <3343440fb02872debc8b49be5261aec530a205f3.1332270303.git.dvhart@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, Clark Williams , Denys Dmytriyenko To: John Kacur Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:50397 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755371Ab2CUALb (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:11:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/20/2012 04:58 PM, John Kacur wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Darren Hart wrote: >> Accept user supplied CFLAGS and LDFLAGS, overwriting the >> Makefile supplied versions. This can cause the build to >> fail if the user does not provide at least what the Makefile >> defines, but so be it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Darren Hart >> CC: Clark Williams >> CC: John Kacur >> CC: Denys Dmytriyenko >> --- > > I was just wondering what you need LDFLAGS for? Chatting with Darren > on IRC, it seems like you're using -Wl to pass options via gcc to the > linker, and we don't have loadable libs either. Maybe you could resend > the patch with just the CFLAGS change until we have a real world > reason for LDFLAGS Denys, Am I missing a reason why we need LDFLAGS? With the current Makefile. we could just add anything we want to CFLAGS in a pinch anyway... -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel