From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 11:18:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 11:18:33 -0500 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237]:3312 "EHLO passion.cambridge.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 11:18:27 -0500 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 From: David Woodhouse X-Accept-Language: en_GB In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: To: Adrian Bunk Cc: Momchil Velikov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] __linux__ and cross-compile Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 16:15:02 +0000 Message-ID: <2385.1011543302@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org bunk@fs.tum.de said: > If your compiler is configured as a cross-compiler everything should > work as expected. If you are trying to compile a Linux kernel with a > gcc that is configured to build binaries for NetBSD this sounds evil. What if he's trying to build UML to run on NetBSD? What if the best QA'd cross-gcc he has available is a generic arm-elf-gcc and he doesn't want to rebuild and do a full test and release cycle on it just because a handful of the kernel header files assume __linux__ will be defined? > I don't know (I never tried to compile a *BSD kernel). If you don't know, who was it that typed 'This is definitely wrong' in your first mail? Your cat? > But if yes please consider what the following parts of your patch change: > -#ifndef __linux__ > +#ifndef __KERNEL__ Well, if he hadn't explicitly mentioned that he made header files which could be included by userspace use defined(__KERNEL__)||defined(__linux__) then I'd understand what you meant. As it is, I don't. Please explain. -- dwmw2