Am 31.03.2012 18:46, schrieb Olaf Hering:
> On Sat, Mar 31, Andreas Färber wrote:
>
>> This is the only usage of += outside Makefile fragments, so I wonder if
>> its use may have been by accident. Is it safe in a POSIX context?
>> Or should we better use CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -march=486"?
>
> Now that
On Sat, Mar 31, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 31 March 2012 16:41, Andreas Färber wrote:
> > This is the only usage of += outside Makefile fragments, so I wonder if
> > its use may have been by accident. Is it safe in a POSIX context?
> > Or should we better use CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -march=486"?
> > For Q
On 31 March 2012 16:41, Andreas Färber wrote:
> This is the only usage of += outside Makefile fragments, so I wonder if
> its use may have been by accident. Is it safe in a POSIX context?
> Or should we better use CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -march=486"?
> For QEMU_CFLAGS we use the pattern QEMU_CFLAGS="-opti
On Sat, Mar 31, Andreas Färber wrote:
> This is the only usage of += outside Makefile fragments, so I wonder if
> its use may have been by accident. Is it safe in a POSIX context?
> Or should we better use CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -march=486"?
Now that I look at the shebang, configure is a sh script and +
Hi Olaf,
Am 30.03.2012 17:24, schrieb Olaf Hering:
>
> configure will generate incorrect CFLAGS which will lead to compile
> errors due to unknown gcc options, IFF CFLAGS was already in the
> environment during configure invocation.
>
> Add a space before the -march=i486 gcc option.
>
> This pa
configure will generate incorrect CFLAGS which will lead to compile
errors due to unknown gcc options, IFF CFLAGS was already in the
environment during configure invocation.
Add a space before the -march=i486 gcc option.
This patch is against the qemu-xen tree, but it should apply also to
qemu.g
