On 27/10/2011 23.04, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 17:54, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote: >> On 27/10/2011 17.32, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 16:42, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote: >>>> +ifndef CROSS_COMPILE >>>> +CROSS_COMPILE= >>>> endif >>> >>> this is kind of useless logic. i would change it to one line: >>> CROSS_COMPILE ?= $(CROSS) >> >> I've really done a sed, so I've kept the original logic. >> IIUC you are suggesting to keep both CROSS and CROSS_COMPILE option, >> If so, it should be the opposite >> >> CROSS ?= $(CROSS_COMPILE) >> >> shouldn't it ? > > considering you changed everything else to use $(CROSS_COMPILE), i > think what i proposed makes the most sense.
Mike, I've understood you suggested to keep the code as is, and in case CROSS_COMPILE was used, use it to set CROSS. > that way we emphasize > that CROSS_COMPILE is what people should be using, but if they don't > but do continue to use CROSS, then the old way works. > > your proposal would prefer CROSS over CROSS_COMPILE if both were specified. frankly I wouldn't expect to see both specified. > -mike > _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
