On Thursday 23 February 2012 12:49:59 Aneesh V wrote: > On Thursday 23 February 2012 11:04 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:58:36PM +0530, Aneesh V wrote: > >> On Thursday 23 February 2012 08:27 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>> On Thursday 23 February 2012 08:39:43 Aneesh V wrote: > >>>> --- a/arch/arm/config.mk > >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/config.mk > >>>> > >>>> -# Explicitly specifiy 32-bit ARM ISA since toolchain default can be > >>>> -mthumb: +# Choose between ARM/Thumb instruction sets > >>>> +ifeq ($(CONFIG_SYS_THUMB_BUILD),y) > >>>> +PF_CPPFLAGS_ARM := $(call cc-option, -mthumb -mthumb-interwork,\ > >>>> + $(call cc-option,-marm,)\ > >>>> + $(call cc-option,-mno-thumb-interwork,)\ > >>>> + ) > >>>> +else > >>>> > >>>> PF_CPPFLAGS_ARM := $(call cc-option,-marm,) > >>>> > >>>> +PF_CPPFLAGS_ARM += $(call cc-option,-mno-thumb-interwork,) > >>> > >>> this 2nd part is no good. "+=" is not the same thing as ":=". > >> > >> I don't understand the difference. '+=' is done after ':=' right? > > > > '+=' is evaluated every file we build, ':=' is evaluated once. We use > > the latter to keep build times down. > > Ok. so, are we trying to reduce the number of "+=", right?
for things that require computation, yes. if it's just string values or other variables, then it doesn't matter and avoiding ":=" is preferred. -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
