On Tuesday 14 April 2009 18:52:30 Peter Tyser wrote: > On Sat, 2009-04-04 at 01:20 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > In message Peter Tyser wrote: > > > Add support for compiling the host tools in the tools directory using > > > the MinGW toolchain. This produces executables which can be used on > > > standard Windows computers without requiring cygwin. > > > > > > One must specify the MinGW compiler and strip utilities as if they > > > were the host toolchain in order to build win32 executables, eg: > > > > > > make HOSTCC=i586-mingw32msvc-gcc HOSTSTRIP=i586-mingw32msvc-strip tools > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Tyser <pty...@xes-inc.com> > > > --- > > > README | 10 ++++++ > > > include/image.h | 2 + > > > include/libfdt_env.h | 12 +++++++ > > > tools/Makefile | 23 ++++++++++---- > > > tools/mingw_support.c | 79 > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ tools/mingw_support.h > > > | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > tools/mkimage.h | 5 +++ > > > tools/os_support.c | 24 +++++++++++++++ > > > tools/os_support.h | 29 ++++++++++++++++++ > > > tools/ubsha1.c | 3 ++ > > > 10 files changed, 231 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > create mode 100644 tools/mingw_support.c > > > create mode 100644 tools/mingw_support.h > > > create mode 100644 tools/os_support.c > > > create mode 100644 tools/os_support.h > > > > I'm not happy about this os_support thingy, especially since it will > > always be compiled, even if not needed in 99.99% of the cases. Maybe > > you have a better idea and can send a cleanup-patch? > > The 2 options that come to mind are: > 1. Keep the current method of unconditionally compiling os_support.c, > which will in turn include any os-specific files. > > 2. Move the logic of determining which os-specific files are compiled > into the Makefile. Something like: > > ifneq (,$(findstring WIN32 ,$(shell $(HOSTCC) -E -dM -xc /dev/null))) > SFX = .exe > +OS_SUPPORT_FILES = mingw_support.c > else > SFX = > +OS_SUPPORT_FILES = > endif > > and then replace references of "os_support.c" with "$(OS_SUPPORT_FILES). > (Or something along those lines). > > > #1 is ugly in that 99.99% of the time an empty os_support.c file is > processed. > > #2 is ugly in that the Makefile method to determine a target OS is > somewhat hokey and will only get hokier if/when additional OS targets > are supported. > > I'd vote for #1 as I think the wasted time of processing os_support.c is > a drop in the bucket and it seems a bit cleaner than hacking up the > Makefile. > > If others have any clever ideas let me know.
i prefer #1 as well ... you covered the reasons fairly well, thanks -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
