On 5/13/15, 8:56 AM, "Olivier MATZ" <olivier.matz at 6wind.com> wrote:
>Hi Keith, > >On 05/13/2015 03:17 PM, Wiles, Keith wrote: >>>> >>>> endif # ifeq ($(NO_AUTOLIBS),) >>>> >>>> -LDLIBS += $(CPU_LDLIBS) >>>> +LDLIBS += $(_LDLIBS-y) $(EXTRA_LDLIBS) >>>> >>> >>> As discussed in the previous mail, all things that are about >>> EXTRA_LDLIBS should be moved in the second patch. Therefore, >>> the title of the second patch should not be "update doc...", but >>> something like "mk: introduce EXTRA_LDLIBS...". >>> >>> By the way, I missed that before, but it seems that your >>> patch removes CPU_LDLIBS, I don't think it's correct. >> >> I found no reference to CPU_LDLIBS in the docs or code other then then >>one >> line. We now have EXTRA_LDLIBS for the command line, right? > >Yes, but your patch says "simplify the ifdef". Removing >a variable (even if it is not used) in this patch is not >a good idea. > >Now, the CPU_CFLAGS, CPU_LDFLAGS, CPU_LDLIBS can be defined internally >by the rte.vars.mk in mk/arch/ or mk/machine/ directories. No docs for CPU_LDLIBS or reference to that variable, which means it does not exist, right? If it was used or documented then I would agree. Having magic variables is not a good idea. I will add the CPU_LDLIBS in to the line, but someone will have to document that variable. > >Regards, >Olivier >
