![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sat, 27 Jun 1998, James Michael Mastros wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 27, 1998 at 07:35:51 AM +0200, Niels Kristian Bech Jensen wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, James Michael Mastros wrote:> > > Because you defined CFLAGS based on HOSTCFLAGS. The two are unrelated.
> Perhaps I'm building a kernel for a 386 on a Pentium.
> > I would have no problem with:> CFLAGS = -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer
> HOSTCFLAGS = -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer
>
I see your point. I've changed it in my patch.
> > > [arch/i386/Makefile]> > > > -> > > > -ifdef SMP> > > > -CFLAGS := $(CFLAGS) -D__SMP__> > > > endif> > > You just killed SMP as we know it.> > > > Defined twice. That's why I remove it.> Whops... Then why don't I see it twice when (accedently, in my case)
> compiling a SMP kernel?>
I don't know. The same lines are in the toplevel Makefile, so -D__SMP__
should be seen twice in the compiler flags. It is on my system.
[...]
> > Why. __SMP__ isn't used in any of the files built by this Makefile. It's
> > defined in the toplevel Makefile anyway.> Many makefiles, including arch/i386/Makefile explicitly set CFLAGS themselves.
>
But they all include CFLAGS from the previous level.
I've used the patch for both UP and SMP kernels without problems.
--
Med venlig hilsen / Best regards
nkbj@image.dk
Niels Kristian Bech Jensen http://www.image.dk/~nkbj/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:43 [W:0.325 / U:8.520 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||