On Saturday 19 February 2005 15:04, Vadim Abrossimov wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:30:54 +0100, Blaisorblade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> > Ok, I have two more requests, if possible:
> > 1) add something like arch/um/Rules.make which is included everywhere
> > needed
>
> Find below the patch which implements Paolo's suggestion with one
> exception:
The patch is totally mangled by the mailer, sorry. Could you please reattach 
it? I've tried fixing it by hand but hadn't got the time.

*) Another suggestion (I'll implement it if you are not going to): the 
creation of USER_SINGLE_OBJS should also be moved to Makefile.rules (the 
below form should be the more general one); so even the "$(filter %_user.o, 
$(USER_SINGLE_OBJS))" snippet could move there.

USER_SINGLE_OBJS = $(foreach f,$(patsubst %.o,%,$(obj-y) $(obj-m)),
$($(f)-objs))

*) About  
http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/work/current/2.6/2.6.11-rc3-mm2/patches/user-obj-cleanup
at his end: I've seen that for stub.S you don't succeed to get it working. 
Have you tried setting a_flags for that one only?

*) Someone who has a working tree with this can check whether enabling 
CONFIG_MODVERSIONS works well? Without it it does not work, for what I 
remember, exactly for the kbuild problem.

When time ago I built a similar patch which changed c_flags (it hacked the 
main Makefiles though) it started to work well, since the object 
postprocessing step was also done. So this patch should also achieve this 
goal, I think.

*) (Slightly unrelated) About this change in the "skas0" patch:

Index: linux-2.6.10/arch/um/Makefile-i386
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.10.orig/arch/um/Makefile-i386     2005-02-12 13:57:48.000000000 
-0500
+++ linux-2.6.10/arch/um/Makefile-i386  2005-02-14 12:36:37.000000000 -0500
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
   endif
 endif

-CFLAGS += -U__$(SUBARCH)__ -U$(SUBARCH)
+CFLAGS += -U__$(SUBARCH)__ -U$(SUBARCH) $(STUB_CFLAGS)
 ARCH_USER_CFLAGS :=

 ifneq ($(CONFIG_GPROF),y)
Index: linux-2.6.10/arch/um/Makefile-x86_64
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.10.orig/arch/um/Makefile-x86_64   2005-02-12 13:57:48.000000000 
-0500
+++ linux-2.6.10/arch/um/Makefile-x86_64        2005-02-14 12:36:37.000000000 
-0500
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 SUBARCH_LIBS := arch/um/sys-x86_64/
 START := 0x60000000

-CFLAGS += -U__$(SUBARCH)__ -fno-builtin
+CFLAGS += -U__$(SUBARCH)__ -fno-builtin $(STUB_CFLAGS)
 ARCH_USER_CFLAGS := -D__x86_64__

 ELF_ARCH := i386:x86-64

I guess it's actually useless, because STUB_CFLAGS is not defined at that 
point, so it should be undone.
> I put the common definitions in arch/um/scripts/Makefile.rules to be more
> consistent
> with my understanding of conventions.
This form is also ok for me. If when merging they want it further renamed, 
we'll take care of it.

> Also I noticed that including my original patch in his tarball Jeff  
> excluded changes
> in some Makefiles (e.g. arch/um/kernel/Makefile).
> Jeff, had you a problem with those Makefiles?
I don't know what Jeff thought, but do you remember the bug I pointed out 
about USER_CFLAGS and [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Well, that problem would cause a compilation problem on 
arch/um/kernel/frame.o, because this would not work:

CFLAGS_frame.o := -fno-omit-frame-pointer
-- 
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade
Linux registered user n. 292729
http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade





-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel

Reply via email to