From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MlYpH-0003nr-Gs for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:51:55 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MlYpD-0003lW-K3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:51:55 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=42238 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MlYpD-0003lF-Eg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:51:51 -0400 Received: from e39.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.160]:36219) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MlYpC-0008Vy-4n for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:51:50 -0400 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e39.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n8A1kQq4002462 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 19:46:26 -0600 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id n8A1piiq150638 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 19:51:44 -0600 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n8A1piC3021979 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 19:51:44 -0600 Message-ID: <4AA85BAD.2000802@us.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:51:41 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <200909092236.n89MaDVS020267@d01av01.pok.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [COMMIT 8a2e6ab] Remove CFLAGS parameter in cc-option List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Juan Quintela Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" Juan Quintela wrote: > malc wrote: > >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Juan Quintela wrote: >> >> >>> malc wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> From: Juan Quintela >>>>> >>>>> With cc-option we are testing if gcc just accept a particular option, we >>>>> don't need CFLAGS at all. And this fixes the recursive problem with >>>>> CFLAGS >>>>> >>>> This is nonsense, previous options, those in CFLAGS, might conflict with >>>> the new ones. >>>> >>> The only thing that we are testing is if gcc support that _option_ >>> >>> What is the use case tat you have in mind? A first grep on gcc man page >>> don't show options that conflict with each other. >>> >> If you want artificial exmaples i can come up with plenty, and from the >> top of my head -m486 with -msse2 are quite incompatible with each other, >> furthermore, point is this - testing one option in isolation is broken. >> > > Ok. For the case that we were using, it don't matter at all. But in > general, there "could" (it is only one cc-option call in all sources). > > Anthony, what do you preffer: > - revert the patch and add another one that changes += by := > No, I don't want to revert this patch and switch to :=. += should work. I don't understand why it doesn't. What I'd prefer is for someone to figure out the root cause of += not working for us. If we can't, I'd like a big fat comment stating that it's a known deficiency and we'll move on. -- Regards, Anthony Liguori