On Thursday 23 February 2012 11:39 PM, Aneesh V wrote:
On Thursday 23 February 2012 11:21 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
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.
We need at least one for finally appending to the exported variable,
right. So, looks like one += for adding '-mthumb -mthumb-interwork'
together is better than having one each for the two options? Is that
the logic?
Please ignore this question. It's clear to me now with Mike's latest
explanation. Thanks.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
