WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] build fixes for cross-compiling

To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] build fixes for cross-compiling
From: Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:31:53 -0700
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Adin Scannell <adin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:33:37 -0700
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=IPyx8ZcROz5mS7JaG6W8wLQIUoVAmd+9S7q6bg1I0xw=; b=s4UWWv/s1FJpPsfx3cPmlcBezrWtbB1ECSrkb9xoD7dOqN8sgiki26SELG7RCA3R1j 1LCvhbWboWGKVDIqZIH4rKiJXS4sj6Oj+A1PCsdT76IuhM0onltbsGUNk+jKZwZLIvzx GKN97NNvpYOFdVMTXcqVvj5FTag27hiUwrNew=
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4E844703020000780005868E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Acx+tIghWfvnFlZWOkKZURMPUlzlfw==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] build fixes for cross-compiling
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.30.0.110427
On 29/09/2011 01:22, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>>> On 29.09.11 at 10:00, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> We have LDFLAGS_DIRECT, adding LDFLAGS_INDIRECT seems a bit gross
>> though... I wonder if perhaps LDFLAGS and LDFLAGS_DIRECT should be
>> mut8lly exclusive, i.e. direct calls to the linker use only the latter
>> and not both?
> 
> Actually I always found it wrong to read commands like "$(CC) $(LDFLAGS)"
> - imo xxxFLAGS should be passed exclusively to tool xxx. So rather than
> having LDFLAGS_DIRECT, I'd suggest cleaning this up and having e.g.
> CCLDFLAGS or CC_LINK_FLAGS or some such.

Or perhaps we could arrange to only link via direct invocation of ld? Apart
from the hassle of changing all our Makefiles, is there a good reason to use
gcc as a linker wrapper?

 -- Keir

> Jan
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel