From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H289n-0005S0-4D for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Jan 2007 10:35:59 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H289l-0005Qf-IW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Jan 2007 10:35:58 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H289l-0005QU-FG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Jan 2007 10:35:57 -0500 Received: from [193.7.176.60] (helo=mail.bawue.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1H289k-0005cr-Vm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Jan 2007 10:35:57 -0500 Received: from lagash (intrt.mips-uk.com [194.74.144.130]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.bawue.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8B4AB834B for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:35:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from ths by lagash with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H28Ab-0004dJ-Fj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Jan 2007 15:36:49 +0000 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 15:36:49 +0000 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu Makefile configure Message-ID: <20070103153649.GE5849@networkno.de> References: <20070103135950.GB5849@networkno.de> <20070103144220.GC5849@networkno.de> <20070103145500.GA13035@nevyn.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070103145500.GA13035@nevyn.them.org> From: Thiemo Seufer Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 02:42:20PM +0000, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > +CFLAGS += $(OS_CFLAGS) > > Did you try this on any target that triggers one of the += cases? > > It's not the most intuitive thing in the world, but I believe make > ignores Makefile += operators if the variable was overridden on the > command line (i.e. the override effectively happens after the +=). You are right. > You'd need to leave CFLAGS for the overrideable bits unless you > wanted to override all the += deliberately. I think I have to use "override CFLAGS += -ffoo". Thiemo