From: Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Cc: linux <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Saving ARCH and CROSS_COMPILE in generated Makefile
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 17:56:11 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1115330171.3838.24.camel@dv.roinet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050505212003.GA16877@mars.ravnborg.org>
On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 23:20 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > In any case, there's no reason to mess with that at all. This stuff is
> > > trivally dealt with by a wrapper script that takes target name as its
> > > first argument (the rest is passed to make unchanged) and figures out
> > > ARCH, CROSS_COMPILE, SUBARCH and build directory by it. End of story.
> >
> > I'm using such script now. It's called kmake.
>
> Use a Makefile called either makefile or GNUMakefile to call make with
> correct arguments. No kmake script required.
> And no difference in behaviour using O= or not.
> You could teach kmake to create such a file if not present.
Or we could teach scripts/mkmakefile to do it for all of us. I can post
a patch that would call scripts/mkmakefile regardless of whether O= is
used, and scripts/mkmakefile would generate makefile rather than
Makefile.
> > I keep forgetting to run
> > kmake instead of make, so it's an annoyance for me (usually it end up
> > with a full screen of error messages, but I'm afraid I could get a mix
> > of object files for different architectures in some cases).
>
> Nope. .o files are rebuild if commandline changes. This works well.
> This works so well that when you change name of gcc you have to rebuild
> the kernel - no matter the arguments used.
> It amy be a shift from gcc 2.96 to gcc 4.0.
Good to know. But my point still stands.
If I have a build tree already compiled for a specific architecture, and
I'm going to compile an external driver against that tree, why do I need
to set ARCH and CROSS_COMPILE to match those used during compilation?
Why cannot the build system do it for me?
Also, if I want to recompile the kernel after changing the source, I
want to run make in the build tree. That's what the generated Makefile
is for. But if I overrode ARCH or CROSS_COMPILE, I have to remember to
do it again. And that's what I want to fix.
I'm sure I can write a very intelligent script tuned for my system that
would do the right thing and that will even set CROSS_COMPILE based on
the architecture from .config file. But I want to share my code, not to
hoard it.
Maybe I should try to implement saving ARCH and CROSS_COMPILE in .config
file, but it would be more intrusive.
--
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-05-05 21:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-05-04 23:11 [PATCH] Saving ARCH and CROSS_COMPILE in generated Makefile Pavel Roskin
2005-05-04 23:23 ` Al Viro
2005-05-05 3:18 ` Pavel Roskin
2005-05-05 21:20 ` Sam Ravnborg
2005-05-05 21:56 ` Pavel Roskin [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1115330171.3838.24.camel@dv.roinet.com \
--to=proski@gnu.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sam@ravnborg.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox