From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NTJ3U-0000tk-9B for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:55:24 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NTJ3Q-0000on-2q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:55:23 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45146 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NTJ3P-0000oF-CT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:55:19 -0500 Received: from mail-pw0-f43.google.com ([209.85.160.43]:65104) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NTJ3O-00069O-Uw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:55:19 -0500 Received: by pwj11 with SMTP id 11so181693pwj.2 for ; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:55:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <128398603.432201262946418786.JavaMail.root@zmail07.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> References: <668989114.432161262946223474.JavaMail.root@zmail07.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <128398603.432201262946418786.JavaMail.root@zmail07.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> From: Blue Swirl Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:54:57 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] write option roms in pc-bios/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Juan Quintela , Avi Kivity , Aurelien Jarno , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>>>> This will wreak havoc on the tree since these are built by default a= nd >>>>>> they are replacing files in revision control. >>>>> ... the next question is why are they (linuxboot.bin and multiboot.bi= n) >>>>> in revision control since they do not require any strange tool to be = built. >>>> They require an i386 cross compiler, which is not available on all >>>> installations. >>> >>> They are being built always anyway now, since their target >>> pc-bios/optionrom/linuxboot.bin does not exist on a checked out tree or >>> even a release tree. =C2=A0But no one has complained. >> >> They are only built on i386 and x86_64 hosts, look at the configure >> script. We should continue providing all the ROM binaries, even the x86 >> ones. > > Oops, my bad. :-( =C2=A0The only reason I see against my patch is that th= e option > ROMS do not change that often; maybe I felt that it should be done differ= ent > only because I screwed up and I'm blaming the code instead of myself. > There is also the problem that they are not built on Darwin and Solaris, > which is possibly even worse. > > What about adding to version control a stamp file and using it to avoid > useless changes to pc-bios/*.bin? =C2=A0Such as overwriting the .bin file= s only > when the .S file changes. =C2=A0Something like the attached patch. configure could also detect that we are building inside the source tree (not in an object tree outside of the source directory) and not compile the roms in that case. Or we could make object tree use mandatory, it's a good practice anyway.