From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@atmel.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:28:06 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] FW: [PATCH][ARM] Rationalize ARM compiler options
In-Reply-To: <000501c873ea$745d6b40$c3031c0a@atmel.com>
References: <20080219123609.3A63324D15@gemini.denx.de>
	<007e01c8738a$908d7590$f4031a0a@atmel.com>
	<20080220105534.3db083d0@dhcp-252-066.norway.atmel.com>
	<000501c873ea$745d6b40$c3031c0a@atmel.com>
Message-ID: <20080220202806.1af92b8b@siona>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:58:27 +0100
"Ulf Samuelsson" <ulf@atmel.com> wrote:

> Looks OK to me, but I never used "call cc-option".

cc-option will try to run the compiler with the option. If the compiler
didn't complain, it evaluates to the option. If it failed, it evaluates
to nothing.

Very useful if you want to introduce new compiler options without
breaking compatibility with old or weird compilers. The Linux build
system uses it all over the place -- I suspect we could prevent quite a
few toolchain incompatibilies by using it more extensively in u-boot as
well.

Of course, it won't help you if the compiler misbehaves in other ways
than just refusing to accept the option.

Haavard