On Monday, September 19, 2011 02:54:35 Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > if it wasn't clear in my last e-mail, i want to move in the direction of > > .mk files that the top level would include them and thus all the > > specific cruft would be kept there > > Why should we do that? > > Having all build rules in a single, huge Makefile does not sound like > something that is desirable (and in this context it does not make any > difference if the file is actually a concatenation of all these build > rules, or if it's hidden in a set of [probably even nested] includes). > > I'm still a big friend of organizing complex stuff in small, > hierarchical structured pieces, so I have to u nderstand it only a > small bit at a time. > > Yes, running a number of nested makes may have some performance > penalty. But frankly: I care a ship about that when I can have the > sofware design simpler and easier to maintain.
i dont think my proposal will be more complex. however, i do think copying & pasting almost the same exact lines over and over across literally hundreds of Makefile's is a broken design. > > after all, the list of things to clean should be obvious once we have > > more kbuild style system: if it's listed as a file to build, then it > > should get cleaned. > > Keep in mind that you said yourslef we always want to remove _all_ > build results - this includes evne those not "listed as a file to > buil" for a specific configuration setting. as i mentioned in another e-mail, you do get access to the complete list regardless of config. COBJS-$(FOO) evaluates to one of two lists: $(COBJS-y) or $(COBJS-). -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot