[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160322144258.GC25862@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:42:58 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: David Sharp <dhsharp@...gle.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...gutronix.de, patchwork-lst@...gutronix.de,
Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools lib api: respect CROSS_COMPILE for the linker
Em Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 08:50:42AM -0400, Steven Rostedt escreveu:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 08:10:10 +0100
> Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 05:40:30PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Em Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 09:08:52AM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 02:38:52PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > > > Em Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:16:23PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf escreveu:
> > > > > > So 'allow-override' would probably be a good option.
> > >
> > > > > Humm, my preference is to make tools/ look like the kernel, and the
> > > > > kernel doesn't use that allow-override thing, right? So perhaps add what
> > > > > is missing to make it look exactly like the kernel and then ditch this
> > > > > allow-override thing?
> > >
> > > > Steven explained his reason for allow-override in the comment above it,
> > > > please make sure the new solution follows that
> > >
> > > Sure, and I'm no make guru, but what puzzles me is why isn't this
> > > required in:
> > >
> > > [acme@...et linux]$ grep -w ^CC Makefile
> > > CC = $(CROSS_COMPILE)gcc
> > > [acme@...et linux]$
> >
> > Steve has special requirements I guess ;-) CC-ed
> >
>
> I just copied what I had in trace-cmd. David Sharp is the one that
> added that code.
>
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1299791491-1805-1-git-send-email-dhsharp@google.com
David, so, what was the usecase for that? Something we can try to
reproduce so that we can check if the kernel solution covers your
specific case?
- Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists