On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 13:07 -0700, Colin D Bennett wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:57:47 -0400 > Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 10:44 -0700, Colin D Bennett wrote: > > > When thousands of long, wrapped lines full of command line options > > > and file names are scrolling by on your terminal, it is very hard > > > to pick out the irregularities in the build process, such as error > > > and warnings. > > > > I like the idea, but the massive use of "override" doesn't looks > > right. I'd rather see variables with different names used throughout > > the makefiles. Linux makefiles don't use "override" at all. > > "override" should be the last resort if everything else fails. > > Ok. Well, are implicit make rules ever used in the makefiles?
I don't think so. "make -r" is working fine for me. > If so, > we would have to make them explicit in order to use a different > compiler variable. I tried to touch the least number of things > possible with my patch. That's a good idea, but doing things right should take priority. If you want, you can split your work along different lines - silence CC first, then LD and so on. > If you wish, I can take a crack at eliminating the use of 'override' > and using a different set of make variables for the instrumented calls > to commands. That would be great. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
