On 08/22/2013 03:55:20 PM, David Daney wrote:
On 08/22/2013 01:41 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
On 08/22/2013 07:58:26 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Sam Ravnborg
wrote:
>> > The series touches also m68k, sh, mips and unicore32.
>> > These architectures magically
On 08/22/2013 01:41 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
On 08/22/2013 07:58:26 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>> > The series touches also m68k, sh, mips and unicore32.
>> > These architectures magically select a cross compiler if ARCH !=
SUBARCH.
>> > Do
On 08/22/2013 07:58:26 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Sam Ravnborg
wrote:
>> > The series touches also m68k, sh, mips and unicore32.
>> > These architectures magically select a cross compiler if ARCH !=
SUBARCH.
>> > Do really need that behavior?
>>
>> This
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>> > The series touches also m68k, sh, mips and unicore32.
>> > These architectures magically select a cross compiler if ARCH != SUBARCH.
>> > Do really need that behavior?
>>
>> This does remove functionality.
>> It allows to build a kernel
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Sam Ravnborg s...@ravnborg.org wrote:
The series touches also m68k, sh, mips and unicore32.
These architectures magically select a cross compiler if ARCH != SUBARCH.
Do really need that behavior?
This does remove functionality.
It allows to build a kernel
On 08/22/2013 07:58:26 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Sam Ravnborg s...@ravnborg.org
wrote:
The series touches also m68k, sh, mips and unicore32.
These architectures magically select a cross compiler if ARCH !=
SUBARCH.
Do really need that behavior?
On 08/22/2013 01:41 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
On 08/22/2013 07:58:26 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Sam Ravnborg s...@ravnborg.org wrote:
The series touches also m68k, sh, mips and unicore32.
These architectures magically select a cross compiler if ARCH !=
On 08/22/2013 03:55:20 PM, David Daney wrote:
On 08/22/2013 01:41 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
On 08/22/2013 07:58:26 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Sam Ravnborg s...@ravnborg.org
wrote:
The series touches also m68k, sh, mips and unicore32.
These architectures
>
> > The series touches also m68k, sh, mips and unicore32.
> > These architectures magically select a cross compiler if ARCH != SUBARCH.
> > Do really need that behavior?
>
> This does remove functionality.
> It allows to build a kernel using e.g. "make ARCH=m68k".
>
> Perhaps this can be
On 08/21/2013 07:07:33 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Richard Weinberger
wrote:
> This series is an attempt to remove the SUBARCH make parameter.
> It as introduced at the times of Linux 2.5 for UML to tell the UML
> build system what the real architecture is.
If ARCH doesn't match uname for some definition of match?
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>
>> The series touches also m68k, sh, mips and unicore32.
>> These architectures magically select a cross compiler if ARCH !=
>SUBARCH.
>> Do really need that
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> The series touches also m68k, sh, mips and unicore32.
> These architectures magically select a cross compiler if ARCH != SUBARCH.
> Do really need that behavior?
Not precisely that, but it’s very common in m68k land
to just cross-build kernels
Am 21.08.2013 14:07, schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> This series is an attempt to remove the SUBARCH make parameter.
>> It as introduced at the times of Linux 2.5 for UML to tell the UML
>> build system what the real architecture is.
>>
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> This series is an attempt to remove the SUBARCH make parameter.
> It as introduced at the times of Linux 2.5 for UML to tell the UML
> build system what the real architecture is.
>
> But we actually don't need SUBARCH, we can store
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Richard Weinberger rich...@nod.at wrote:
This series is an attempt to remove the SUBARCH make parameter.
It as introduced at the times of Linux 2.5 for UML to tell the UML
build system what the real architecture is.
But we actually don't need SUBARCH, we can
Am 21.08.2013 14:07, schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Richard Weinberger rich...@nod.at wrote:
This series is an attempt to remove the SUBARCH make parameter.
It as introduced at the times of Linux 2.5 for UML to tell the UML
build system what the real architecture
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Richard Weinberger wrote:
The series touches also m68k, sh, mips and unicore32.
These architectures magically select a cross compiler if ARCH != SUBARCH.
Do really need that behavior?
Not precisely that, but it’s very common in m68k land
to just cross-build kernels with
If ARCH doesn't match uname for some definition of match?
Thorsten Glaser t.gla...@tarent.de wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Richard Weinberger wrote:
The series touches also m68k, sh, mips and unicore32.
These architectures magically select a cross compiler if ARCH !=
SUBARCH.
Do really need
On 08/21/2013 07:07:33 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Richard Weinberger rich...@nod.at
wrote:
This series is an attempt to remove the SUBARCH make parameter.
It as introduced at the times of Linux 2.5 for UML to tell the UML
build system what the real
The series touches also m68k, sh, mips and unicore32.
These architectures magically select a cross compiler if ARCH != SUBARCH.
Do really need that behavior?
This does remove functionality.
It allows to build a kernel using e.g. make ARCH=m68k.
Perhaps this can be moved to generic
20 matches
Mail list logo
