At 14:54 +0000 on 07 Mar (1299509669), Ian Campbell wrote:
> Is it worth arranging for "gcc := y" when clang is not enabled? Then a
> whole bunch of this sort of thing devolves into the
> CFLAGS-$(a-particular-cc) += -Wfoo
> pattern.
Something like the attached? It tidies up four such ifeqs, at the cost
of one new one to define $(gcc).
(4 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-))
> > @@ -1,6 +1,11 @@
> > AS = $(CROSS_COMPILE)as
> > +ifeq ($(clang),y)
> > +LD = $(CROSS_COMPILE)gold
> > +CC = $(CROSS_COMPILE)clang
> > +else
> > LD = $(CROSS_COMPILE)ld
> > CC = $(CROSS_COMPILE)gcc
> > +endif
> > CPP = $(CC) -E
> > AR = $(CROSS_COMPILE)ar
> > RANLIB = $(CROSS_COMPILE)ranlib
>
> LD-$(clang) = ...
> LD-$(gcc) = ...
>
> LD := $(LD-y)
I tried that but it looks about as bad, and actually has more
repetition.
Tim.
--
Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Principal Software Engineer, Xen Platform Team
Citrix Systems UK Ltd. (Company #02937203, SL9 0BG)
makeism
Description: Text document
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home