 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 |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] libxl: Introduce libxl__fd_set_cloexec., Anthony PERARD |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xl: fixup command line handling for several commands, Ian Jackson |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] build fixes for cross-compiling, Jan Beulich |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] build fixes for cross-compiling, Jan Beulich |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
