On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 09:32:23AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 03:02:17 +0100
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 01:11:49PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 11:04:36AM +0100, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> > > > Thomas Bä
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 03:02:17 +0100
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 01:11:49PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 11:04:36AM +0100, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> > > Thomas Bächler schrieb:
> > > >
> > > > I just remembered, a friend of mine got it to
From: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 17:34:39 +0100
> But the main point that stuff like e.g. -I/usr/local/dist/include that
> might in some environments be correct for all and required for most
> userspace software should not leak into the kernel still stands.
You can ha
From: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 16:29:30 +0100
> On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 02:31:33AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > People can't have it both ways. CFLAGS has global meaning in every
> > Makefile based build tree, it's not an "autoconf" thing. This is well
> > establis
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 05:19:45PM +0100, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 02:31:33AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 11:04:29 +0100
* Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I also h
> > If people set something like CFLAGS in their environment, they must
> > understand what that means, and it means that universally it will
> > influence your Makefile based builds. Yes, this means all of them and
> > even potentially the kernel build.
> >
> > I definitely think the new kbuild
On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 05:19:45PM +0100, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 02:31:33AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 11:04:29 +0100
>>>
* Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 02:31:33AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 11:04:29 +0100
* Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I also have CFLAGS set on some computers in my environments since for
packages using GNU autoco
= 11/4/07 =
> > > > I also have CFLAGS set on some computers in my environments since for
> > > > packages using GNU autoconf that's the correct way to set the compiler
> > > > flags.
[]
> > ...
> > > At minimum the extra CFLAGS needs to be put into the .config - but
> > > that's not a too nice s
On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 02:31:33AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 11:04:29 +0100
>
> >
> > * Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I also have CFLAGS set on some computers in my environments since for
> > > packages using GN
Sam Ravnborg schrieb:
> I'm afraid some people do not realize a whit about what they do.
> So at least we could let kbuild warn about it.
> Something like this:
>
> $ export CFLAGS=-O3
> $ make AFLAGS=-fisk
> Makefile:540: "Appending $AFLAGS (-fisk) from command line to kernel defined
> $AFLAGS"
> I totally disagree.
>
> People can't have it both ways. CFLAGS has global meaning in every
> Makefile based build tree, it's not an "autoconf" thing. This is well
> established practice, and I think it's a good thing the kernel does it
> now too.
>
> If people set something like CFLAGS in the
From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 11:04:29 +0100
>
> * Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I also have CFLAGS set on some computers in my environments since for
> > packages using GNU autoconf that's the correct way to set the compiler
> > flags.
> >
> > The
On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 11:04:29AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 01:11:49PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 11:04:36AM +0100, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> > > > Thomas Bächler schrieb:
> > > > >
> > > > >
* Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 01:11:49PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 11:04:36AM +0100, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> > > Thomas Bächler schrieb:
> > > >
> > > > I just remembered, a friend of mine got it to compile with the exact
> > > >
On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 01:11:49PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 11:04:36AM +0100, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> > Thomas Bächler schrieb:
> > >
> > > I just remembered, a friend of mine got it to compile with the exact
> > > same toolchain, but with a different configuration (whi
On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 11:04:36AM +0100, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Thomas Bächler schrieb:
> >
> > I just remembered, a friend of mine got it to compile with the exact
> > same toolchain, but with a different configuration (which I don't have).
> > He used a snapshot tarball from yesterday though,
Thomas Bächler schrieb:
>
> I just remembered, a friend of mine got it to compile with the exact
> same toolchain, but with a different configuration (which I don't have).
> He used a snapshot tarball from yesterday though, not the git tree.
>
I found the problem and eliminated it. While this is
Thomas Gleixner schrieb:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Thomas Bächler wrote:
>
>> Thomas Gleixner schrieb:
>>> Thomas,
>>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Thomas Bächler wrote:
x86_64 fails to compile for me with this error:
CC arch/x86/kernel/vsyscall_64.o
{standard input}: Assembler
Thomas,
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> x86_64 fails to compile for me with this error:
>
> CC arch/x86/kernel/vsyscall_64.o
> {standard input}: Assembler messages:
> {standard input}:434: Error: symbol `vsysc2' is already defined
> make[1]: *** [arch/x86/kernel/vsyscall_64.o]
20 matches
Mail list logo
