On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 9:47 AM, Kyle Evans <kev...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Warner Losh <i...@bsdimp.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Kyle Evans <kev...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> > >> n Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 9:28 AM, Kyle Evans <kev...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> > On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 9:16 PM, Warner Losh <i...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> >> Author: imp > >> >> Date: Mon Feb 26 03:16:04 2018 > >> >> New Revision: 330004 > >> >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/330004 > >> >> > >> >> Log: > >> >> Add NO_OBJ to those directories that don't make anything. > >> >> > >> >> For directories that don't many anything, add NO_OBJ=t just before > we > >> >> include bsd.init.mk. This prevents them from creating an OBJ > >> >> directory. In addition, prevent defs.mk from creating the machine > >> >> related links in these cases. They aren't needed and break, at > least > >> >> on stable, the read-only src tree build. > >> >> > >> > > >> > Any objection to also removing efi from i386 SUBDIR? It seems silly > >> > to be explicitly adding it when we know nothing here is applicable and > >> > it's going to take some amount of work to get there. > >> > >> In fact, this block [1] feels wrong, too... why are we adding efi to > >> SUBDIR for arch's that don't support it? I understand the GCC checks, > >> but libefi, loader, and boot1 are the main bits of efi/, why are these > >> stuck behind MACHINE_CPUARCH checks? > >> > >> [1] > >> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/stand/efi/Makefile?view=markup#l17 > > > > > > I think that none of the arch tests in that file are anywhere near legit > in > > that file. More cargo-cult kludgery to eliminate in the build system. > I'll > > take care of that. If i386 builds, we should keep it, otherwise we > > shouldn't. In fact, we should move all the EFI ifdef junk-o-matic crap > from > > Makefile.<arch> at the top level as well. > > > > Right- the arch tests surrounding the FDT bits are pointless and only > really stop us from building something we won't be using (since FDT is > default yes regardless of arch, for some reason). > > It would be nice if we could build efi/fdt based on whether we'll be > building an EFI loader w/ HAVE_FDT set rather than these arch tests, > but I understand that that's not necessarily straightforward. It all comes from a fundamental misunderstanding that there's three options for every build option: default yes, default no, and broken.... Warner > Lemme toss together a patch. > > > > Excellent. =) > > > Warner > _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"