Hi Wolfgang, > > #1 is ugly in that 99.99% of the time an empty os_support.c file is > > processed. > > > > #2 is ugly in that the Makefile method to determine a target OS is > > somewhat hokey and will only get hokier if/when additional OS targets > > are supported. > > > > I'd vote for #1 as I think the wasted time of processing os_support.c is > > a drop in the bucket and it seems a bit cleaner than hacking up the > > Makefile. > > > > If others have any clever ideas let me know. > > It seems there were no really clever ideas, or did I miss them? > > Hm.. actually I lost track of which patch is missing. Could you please > send me a pointer to the latest and greatest version? Sorry & thanks.
The original v3 of "Add support for building native win32 tools" has actually been merged already. After merging the patch, you had requested a cleanup patch to which I responded with the patch's rationale as well as a possible (in my opinion) dirtier cleanup. No one else suggested a cleaner way to implement the change, so what is currently committed should be correct. I'm still open to clever ideas if anyone has one though:) Thanks, Peter _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot