[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwsBBHDVziQRjFq6YFVsNsX7tPrH_34PSVwMMd0Q5=PWw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 13:29:07 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"arc-linux-dev@...opsys.com" <arc-linux-dev@...opsys.com>,
Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@...opsys.com>,
Joel Porquet <joel@...quet.org>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] ARC fixes for 4.2-rc3
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Vineet Gupta
<Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com> wrote:
>
> ARC fixes for 4.2-rc3
>
> - Makefile changes (top-level+ARC) reinstates -O3 builds (regression since 3.16)
So I pulled this, but it worries me a tiny bit.
What happens if the environment has ARCH_CFLAGS set? The build will
start using them. Sure, we've had this before, and maybe the ARCH_
prefix makes it unique enough, but generally I think we've tried to
either
(a) make sure they get initialized in the makefiles (eg the usual
CFLAGS is set to empty by the arch things, so that we don't silently
take them from the environment)
(b) use KBUILD_ as a prefix (or at least K, as in KCFLAGS
so I have this feeling that the makefile should initialize these guys
to be empty before including the architecture makefile.
I don't think this is a big deal, and I suspect we may have other
cases where we do this, but I do not think that the *intention* was
that people could use this as another KCFLAGS replacement...
Comments?
Linus
--
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