[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <adaocdg3fng.fsf@roland-alpha.cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 14:37:07 -0700
From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To: Yegor Yefremov <yegorslists@...glemail.com>
Cc: Tiago Maluta <tiago.maluta@...il.com>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE issue in .config
> What about such a solution:
>
> just remove empty CROSS_COMPILE ?=
>
> Fix CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE issue in .config
>
> Signed-off-by: Yegor Yefremov <yegorslists@...glemail.com>
>
> Index: b/Makefile
> ===================================================================
> --- a/Makefile 2010-08-02 00:11:14.000000000 +0200
> +++ b/Makefile 2010-08-04 14:08:51.000000000 +0200
> @@ -189,7 +189,6 @@
> # Note: Some architectures assign CROSS_COMPILE in their arch/*/Makefile
> export KBUILD_BUILDHOST := $(SUBARCH)
> ARCH ?= $(SUBARCH)
> -CROSS_COMPILE ?=
> CROSS_COMPILE ?= $(CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE:"%"=%)
Yes, this make sense to me. It's not clear to me why we ever needed
the conditional assignment of an empty CROSS_COMPILE (that code predates
the start of git history) but clearly having two "?=" assignments one
after another cannot work -- the second assignment to CROSS_COMPILE will
never do anything, since the line before makes CROSS_COMPILE defined.
- R.
--
Roland Dreier <rolandd@...co.com> || For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists