On 07/02/2012 04:17 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 02.07.2012, at 23:16, Scott Wood wrote: > >> On 07/02/2012 04:08 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> >>> On 02.07.2012, at 23:07, Scott Wood wrote: >>> >>>> How is hw/ppc/e500.o better than ppc/e500.o? >>> >>> If I read this correctly, he's suggesting "e500.o" :) >> >> No, plain "e500.o" won't work no matter where you put it in the makefile >> (unless you add more global prefix setting). I think he's suggesting >> that the plan is to eventually migrate to everything specifying its full >> path, though I don't see why. > > Why wouldn't "e500.o" in hw/ppc/Makefile.objs work? I'd hope we traverse the > target specific path first, no?
Sigh, my fault for trying to read a makefile on short sleep. I hadn't paid enough attention to exactly what that addprefix was doing. :-P Will fix. -Scott
