On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 02:18 -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On May 6, 2008, at 3:37 AM, Balbir Singh wrote: > > > On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> On Wednesday 30 April 2008, Garrett Cooper wrote: > >>> 1. The make process isn't multiple arch/target friendly, i.e. you > >> > >>> build once for x86 and you have to rebuiI am not sure about > >>> uclinux* targetsld for ia64, ppc64, etc and > >>> after the build capture all of the compiled binaries using some > >>> intermediary method. > >> > >> multi-arch itself by definition is limiting. adding any sort of > >> magic in this > >> direction is just bloat. i'd focus on out-of-tree building as that > >> would > >> address any sort of random stuff people want to do. > >> > > > > I agree with you Mike, but I am curious to see what Garrett has, > > specially if those cleanups are generic > > > >>> 2. Assuming that the user has gmake (which they should if they > >>> plan on > >> > >>> working with LTP and Linux), there are a number of > >>> simplifications that > >>> can be made to the Makefiles to allow for simpler variable and > >>> make target > >>> definition. > >> > >> the gmake requirement has been unwritten so far ... might as well > >> codify the > >> requirement and stop dancing around the issue. > >> > > > > The question basically boils down to -- can we use GNU make specific > > features? My answer would be "Yes" > > > >>> 3. The uclinux* make targets could be removed in favor of > >>> conditionally defined global targets. > >> > >> this is just a silly target. i'd punt it. > >> -mike > > > > Balbir > > The makefiles are mostly done (the top-level ones that LTP touches, > i.e. not the ballista and other subproject makefiles as LTP isn't the > maintainers and those should be fixed upstream), but there's some sort > of misunderstanding on my part as to how define's and variable > scoping, lifetime, and rule evaluation are done with GNU make(1) with > include'd Makefiles, so I've punted the ball back up-court until I can > get some helpful answers from them, as their documentation is slightly > confusing. > So far my diff is ~190KB large.
Good to know that. Please also include a very good documentation on what the forthcoming patch will address in LTP Makefiles. We are looking for a good debate and final inclusion. Regards-- Subrata > Cheers, > -Garrett > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Ltp-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
