On 14/4/2022 4:21 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 14/04/2022 04:19, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 14/4/2022 7:47 am, Kinsey Moore wrote:
>>> This expands the ability to substitute variables outside the current
>>> limitation of values in options to asflags, cflags, cppflags, cxxflags,
>>> ldflags, and includes. It is possible for all of these flags to utilize
>>> user-defined information in config.ini, especially for paths to external
>>> resources.
>> Is exposing access to cflags etc vis config.ini something we want to allow?
>> It
>> seems low level and I am not sure where it may lead up.
>
> The patch allows you to use options in the flags, for example:
>
> cflags:
> - -I${MY_HYPERVISOR_INCLUDE_PATH}
>
> It makes the build system more flexible with little extra code.
Yes it does and I think this is useful however it also lets users set options
that could break RTEMS or clash with the options we have specified and effect
RTEMS is subtle or difficult to find ways.
A option that defined support for a hyper-visor provides some level of control
we could verify.
I am not against this feature, I am just wondering what it ends up giving us and
is it worth it?
Chris
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
