[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-rt-users
Subject:    Re: [PATCH 1/3] rt-tests: Support user supplied CFLAGS and LDFLAGS
From:       John Kacur <jkacur () redhat ! com>
Date:       2012-03-21 20:16:04
Message-ID: CAONaPpH7UgxeLXVcm2dqRwzGyFRs6yY8OiLw-Ocq_BQO7C7zJA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 03/21/2012 12:10 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 05:10:48PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 03/20/2012 04:58 PM, John Kacur wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > Accept user supplied CFLAGS and LDFLAGS, overwriting the
> > > > > Makefile supplied versions. This can cause the build to
> > > > > fail if the user does not provide at least what the Makefile
> > > > > defines, but so be it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
> > > > > CC: Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
> > > > > CC: John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>
> > > > > CC: Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > > 
> > > > I was just wondering what you need LDFLAGS for? Chatting with Darren
> > > > on IRC, it seems like you're using -Wl to pass options via gcc to the
> > > > linker, and we don't have loadable libs either. Maybe you could resend
> > > > the patch with just the CFLAGS change until we have a real world
> > > > reason for LDFLAGS
> > > 
> > > Denys,
> > > 
> > > Am I missing a reason why we need LDFLAGS? With the current Makefile. we
> > > could just add anything we want to CFLAGS in a pinch anyway...
> > 
> > Darren,
> > 
> > From OE-Core config files:
> > 
> > LINKER_HASH_STYLE ??= "gnu"
> > TARGET_LINK_HASH_STYLE ?= \
> > "${@['-Wl,--hash-style=gnu',''][d.getVar('LINKER_HASH_STYLE', True) != 'gnu']}" \
> > export TARGET_LDFLAGS = "-Wl,-O1 ${TARGET_LINK_HASH_STYLE}" ASNEEDED = \
> > "-Wl,--as-needed" TARGET_LDFLAGS += "${ASNEEDED}"
> > export LDFLAGS = "${TARGET_LDFLAGS}"
> > 
> > 
> > So, those are still linker flags (altough passed through -Wl to gcc), hence
> > they belong to LDFLAGS, not CFLAGS. Arguably, you only need to pass CFLAGS
> > during compile stage and LDFLAGS during link stage. On the other hand, as a
> > workaround, I was passing them to TARGET_CC_ARCH, which gets embedded into CC
> > and won't distinguish between compile/link stages...
> > 
> > So rt-tests just gets away not using LDFLAGS and re-using CFLAGS for the link
> > stage. :) But the current Makefile as it is now won't honor CFLAGS being set
> > from outside, unless you pass them explicitly on the command line to make, or
> > call make with -e flag.
> 
> Right, at the very least I'll resubmit the patch allowing override of
> CFLAGS. But I wanted to know if you felt there was any need to support
> overriding of LDFLAGS for rt-tests which doesn't build any shared libs.
> 

Okay, never mind, you've convinced me, and your changes don't look
like they will break anything, so I'll give you my approval as is.

Thanks.
John
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]