[U-Boot-Users] MAKEALL patch

[U-Boot-Users] MAKEALL patch

[Michal Simek]

Corection MAKEALL script.

Signed of by: Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>


diff --git a/MAKEALL b/MAKEALL
index 127faa8..2b44244 100755
--- a/MAKEALL
+++ b/MAKEALL
@@ -348,7 +348,7 @@ build_target() {
  ${MAKE} ${JOBS} all 2>&1 >${LOG_DIR}/$target.MAKELOG \
     | tee ${LOG_DIR}/$target.ERR
 
- ${CROSS_COMPILE:-ppc_8xx-}size ${BUILD_DIR}/u-boot \
+ ${CROSS_COMPILE}size ${BUILD_DIR}/u-boot \
     | tee -a ${LOG_DIR}/$target.MAKELOG
 }
  

[U-Boot-Users] MAKEALL patch

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <006f01c7d762$3976ead0$0500a8c0@monstrone> you wrote:
> Corection MAKEALL script.
> 
> Signed of by: Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>
> 
> 
> diff --git a/MAKEALL b/MAKEALL
> index 127faa8..2b44244 100755
> --- a/MAKEALL
> +++ b/MAKEALL
> @@ -348,7 +348,7 @@ build_target() {
>   ${MAKE} ${JOBS} all 2>&1 >${LOG_DIR}/$target.MAKELOG \
>      | tee ${LOG_DIR}/$target.ERR
>  
> - ${CROSS_COMPILE:-ppc_8xx-}size ${BUILD_DIR}/u-boot \
> + ${CROSS_COMPILE}size ${BUILD_DIR}/u-boot \
>      | tee -a ${LOG_DIR}/$target.MAKELOG
>  }

What is the specific bug you intend to fix here?  Using  ppc_8xx-size
in  case  CROSS_COMPILE is not set is not worse than using the native
"size" command, it seems. Actually, given the fact that the  majority
supported of boards are PowerPC, it is right in most cases.

So why do you think it should be changed?

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

[U-Boot-Users] MAKEALL patch

[Michal Simek]

Hi Wolfgang,

> What is the specific bug you intend to fix here?  Using  ppc_8xx-size
> in  case  CROSS_COMPILE is not set is not worse than using the native
> "size" command, it seems. Actually, given the fact that the  majority
> supported of boards are PowerPC, it is right in most cases.
>
> So why do you think it should be changed?

I think size utility do the same function as ppc_8xx-size.
I tried 4 cross tools and the result is the same. (Logs are below)
And in man page you can find: "size can automatically recognize many 
formats" in --target option.

From my point of view is size utility better than error message.
And I think that many developers use different cross tools than ppc_8xx-.

Best regards,
Michal Simek

microblaze at monstr u-boot-microblaze]$ ./MAKEALL xupv2p
Configuring for xupv2p board...
./MAKEALL: line 351: ppc_8xx-size: command not found

[microblaze at monstr u-boot-microblaze]$ ./MAKEALL xupv2p
Configuring for xupv2p board...
   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
  89326   21479  214916  325721   4f859 ./u-boot

[microblaze at monstr u-boot-microblaze]$ size u-boot
   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
  89326   21479  214916  325721   4f859 u-boot

[microblaze at monstr u-boot-microblaze]$ microblaze-uclinux-size u-boot
   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
  89326   21479  214916  325721   4f859 u-boot

[microblaze at monstr u-boot-microblaze]$ powerpc-405-linux-gnu-size u-boot
   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
  89326   21479  214916  325721   4f859 u-boot
[microblaze at monstr u-boot-microblaze]$

[microblaze at monstr bin]$ powerpc-linux-uclibc-size  u-boot
   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
  89326   21479  214916  325721   4f859 u-boot
[microblaze at monstr bin]$

[U-Boot-Users] MAKEALL patch

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <001301c7d76f$fd1d5c50$0500a8c0@monstrone> you wrote:
> 
> I think size utility do the same function as ppc_8xx-size.

It depends on the build options if it supports the target architecture
or not.

> I tried 4 cross tools and the result is the same. (Logs are below)
> And in man page you can find: "size can automatically recognize many 
> formats" in --target option.

The "in --target option" is the important part here.

> >From my point of view is size utility better than error message.
> And I think that many developers use different cross tools than ppc_8xx-.

Which error message? If you set CROSS_COMPILE to any sane  value  for
your system, or set it to the empty string, no error will be caused.


Please show which error you are trying to fix.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
I have yet to add the ESP-driver to the kernel to read  the  mind  of
the user...                                       - Linus Torvalds in
      <Pine.LNX.3.91.960426110644.24860I-100000@linux.cs.Helsinki.FI>

[U-Boot-Users] MAKEALL patch

[Mike Frysinger]

On Sunday 05 August 2007, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <006f01c7d762$3976ead0$0500a8c0@monstrone> you wrote:
> > Corection MAKEALL script.
> >
> > Signed of by: Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/MAKEALL b/MAKEALL
> > index 127faa8..2b44244 100755
> > --- a/MAKEALL
> > +++ b/MAKEALL
> > @@ -348,7 +348,7 @@ build_target() {
> >   ${MAKE} ${JOBS} all 2>&1 >${LOG_DIR}/$target.MAKELOG \
> >
> >      | tee ${LOG_DIR}/$target.ERR
> >
> > - ${CROSS_COMPILE:-ppc_8xx-}size ${BUILD_DIR}/u-boot \
> > + ${CROSS_COMPILE}size ${BUILD_DIR}/u-boot \
> >
> >      | tee -a ${LOG_DIR}/$target.MAKELOG
> >
> >  }
>
> What is the specific bug you intend to fix here?  Using  ppc_8xx-size
> in  case  CROSS_COMPILE is not set is not worse than using the native
> "size" command, it seems. Actually, given the fact that the  majority
> supported of boards are PowerPC, it is right in most cases.
>
> So why do you think it should be changed?

ive posted this patch a few times but never gotten a response ...

this code is wrong because ppc_8xx-size rarely exists for people who are not 
doing ppc development while size almost always exists.

so while the toplevel Makefile will setup a default CROSS prefix based on the 
board config, the MAKEALL script does not have access to that information, so 
for everyone who lacks ppc_8xx-size, using the MAKEALL script yields annoying 
broken output by default.

consider my typical use case:
./MAKEALL blackfin
i do not have CROSS_COMPILE set in my env and this is OK because the top level 
Makefile sets it by default to bfin-uclinux-.
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20070806/b37b08c4/attachment.pgp 

[U-Boot-Users] MAKEALL patch

[Michal Simek]

>> What is the specific bug you intend to fix here?  Using  ppc_8xx-size
>> in  case  CROSS_COMPILE is not set is not worse than using the native
>> "size" command, it seems. Actually, given the fact that the  majority
>> supported of boards are PowerPC, it is right in most cases.
>>
>> So why do you think it should be changed?
>
>ive posted this patch a few times but never gotten a response ...
>
>this code is wrong because ppc_8xx-size rarely exists for people who are 
>not
>doing ppc development while size almost always exists.
>
>so while the toplevel Makefile will setup a default CROSS prefix based on 
>the
>board config, the MAKEALL script does not have access to that information, 
>so
>for everyone who lacks ppc_8xx-size, using the MAKEALL script yields 
>annoying
>broken output by default.
>
>consider my typical use case:
>./MAKEALL blackfin
>i do not have CROSS_COMPILE set in my env and this is OK because the top 
>level
>Makefile sets it by default to bfin-uclinux-.
>-mike

Thanks Mike.