On Monday, December 27, 2010 13:58:08 Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote: > > > > This move linker option used by the last of u-boot in LDFLAGS_u-boot > > > > variable. And the option to use in ld uses LDFLAGS variable. > > > > > > Can you please explain why this would be needed? > > > > he explained in the previous thread why we need to split things. there > > are flags that are needed for all linker options and there are flags > > needed just for the final u-boot link. > > Such an explanation belongs into the commit message.
yes, but that isnt what you asked > > > > -LDFLAGS += --gc-sections -m elf32bfin > > > > +LDFLAGS_u-boot += --gc-sections > > > > > > The name "LDFLAGS_u-boot" may actually work here, but iut is > > > inconsistent with other such variables names, and using '-' in a name > > > is probably not a good idea either. > > > > it isnt inconsistent. the convention is $(XFLAGS_$(@F)) and we just > > happen to > > Can you please point me to an example where this has been used in > U-Boot before? Or why do you call this a convention? (1) it's what's used in Linux and every build system based on that (kbuild) (2) u-boot is slowly moving to the conventions already in use by Linux (3) u-boot already uses this specific convention for every .c/.s/.S file -- simply look at the bottom of config.mk it makes perfect sense to keep the existing syntax and extend LDFLAGS behavior to it rather than coming up with some new specific variable that only applies to the final link of u-boot. otherwise every other final link we have in u- boot will need its own random style (examples, standalone, spl, ...). -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
