On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:19:59PM +0530, Aneesh V wrote: > On Thursday 23 February 2012 11:04 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > >On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:58:36PM +0530, Aneesh V wrote: > >>On Thursday 23 February 2012 08:27 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>>On Thursday 23 February 2012 08:39:43 Aneesh V wrote: > >>>>--- a/arch/arm/config.mk > >>>>+++ b/arch/arm/config.mk > >>>> > >>>>-# Explicitly specifiy 32-bit ARM ISA since toolchain default can be > >>>>-mthumb: +# Choose between ARM/Thumb instruction sets > >>>>+ifeq ($(CONFIG_SYS_THUMB_BUILD),y) > >>>>+PF_CPPFLAGS_ARM := $(call cc-option, -mthumb -mthumb-interwork,\ > >>>>+ $(call cc-option,-marm,)\ > >>>>+ $(call cc-option,-mno-thumb-interwork,)\ > >>>>+ ) > >>>>+else > >>>> PF_CPPFLAGS_ARM := $(call cc-option,-marm,) > >>>>+PF_CPPFLAGS_ARM += $(call cc-option,-mno-thumb-interwork,) > >>> > >>>this 2nd part is no good. "+=" is not the same thing as ":=". > >> > >>I don't understand the difference. '+=' is done after ':=' right? > > > >'+=' is evaluated every file we build, ':=' is evaluated once. We use > >the latter to keep build times down. > > > > Ok. so, are we trying to reduce the number of "+=", right?
Yes, it should already be at or near 0 uses. -- Tom _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
