[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <78a8ba04459f8a4ea6bcb8811f35490018b763f2.camel@perches.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:56:20 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: single target builds are broken
On Wed, 2020-04-01 at 01:03 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:02 PM Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com> wrote:
> > It's really useful to be able to build object files separately, but as
> > if it was part of the kernel (so e.g. with all the gcc flags, include
> > paths, etc.).
[]
> So, there were lots of cases where single builds did not work:
>
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-kbuild/msg21921.html
>
> The way to do this correctly is to
> descend directories one by one, parsing Makefiles.
>
> With no entry in obj-y/m,
> Kbuild cannot determine where to build that object.
>
> > At the very least, can we find a way to reduce the typing overhead for
> > testing one-offs like that? 'make STANDALONE=1 test.o' or something?
>
> Probably, I do not want to do this.
>
> Supporting everybody's demand is not a good idea.
> So, I draw a line somewhere.
>
> Saving some typing is less important.
I too find this regression less than desirable.
make <single_object> is/was quite useful even
if it didn't always work.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists