On 26.07.2019 15:33, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > --- a/config/StdGNU.mk > +++ b/config/StdGNU.mk > @@ -1,8 +1,6 @@ > # Use Clang/LLVM instead of GCC? > clang ?= n > > -AS = $(CROSS_COMPILE)as > -LD = $(CROSS_COMPILE)ld > ifeq ($(clang),y) > gcc := n > DEF_CC = clang > @@ -28,19 +26,21 @@ HOSTCC ?= $(DEF_CC) > HOSTCXX ?= $(DEF_CXX) > endif > > -CPP = $(CC) -E > -AR = $(CROSS_COMPILE)ar > -RANLIB = $(CROSS_COMPILE)ranlib > -NM = $(CROSS_COMPILE)nm > -STRIP = $(CROSS_COMPILE)strip > -OBJCOPY = $(CROSS_COMPILE)objcopy > -OBJDUMP = $(CROSS_COMPILE)objdump > -SIZEUTIL = $(CROSS_COMPILE)size > +AS ?= $(CROSS_COMPILE)as > +LD ?= $(CROSS_COMPILE)ld > +CPP ?= $(CC) -E > +AR ?= $(CROSS_COMPILE)ar > +RANLIB ?= $(CROSS_COMPILE)ranlib > +NM ?= $(CROSS_COMPILE)nm > +STRIP ?= $(CROSS_COMPILE)strip > +OBJCOPY ?= $(CROSS_COMPILE)objcopy > +OBJDUMP ?= $(CROSS_COMPILE)objdump > +SIZEUTIL ?= $(CROSS_COMPILE)size
This does affect more than just the toolchain part of the tree, doesn't it? Irrespective of this my point made for patch 2 applies here as well. Furthermore, if we were to go this route, then SunOS.mk would want similar massaging. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
