Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 27 Jun 1998 08:50:49 +0200 (CEST) | From | Niels Kristian Bech Jensen <> | Subject | Re: Patch to ask if user has egcs/pgcc / add me to credits |
| |
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
| |