On Thursday 26 July 2012 03:06:06 Horst Kronstorfer wrote: > On 07/25/2012 06:06 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Tuesday 24 July 2012 15:38:55 Horst Kronstorfer wrote: > >> On 07/24/2012 05:28 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>> On Tuesday 24 July 2012 06:11:04 Horst Kronstorfer wrote: > >>>> On 07/19/2012 05:22 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>>>> On Friday 13 July 2012 09:03:40 Horst Kronstorfer wrote: > >>>>>> Add '-undef' to DTS_CPPFLAGS to avoid unwanted expansion of dts > >>>>>> content that matches system-specific or gcc-specific predefined > >>>>>> macros. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Example: A number of PowerPC related *.dts files in the kernel > >>>>>> define a property named 'linux,network-index' which (w/o '-undef') > >>>>>> is expanded to '1,network-index' by the preprocessor because of > >>>>>> '#define linux 1.' > >>>>> > >>>>> i think you should use -ansi instead. that's what we use in other > >>>>> places for the same reason. > >>>> > >>>> this would increase the probability of a name clash. > >>> > >>> no idea what you're talking about. have you actually looked at the > >>> output of `gcc -E -dD -ansi` ? > >> > >> $ gcc -E -dM -ansi - </dev/null | wc -l > >> 229 > >> $ gcc -E -dM -undef - </dev/null | wc -l > >> 2 > > > > and ? did you *look* at the output ? they're all of the form __foo__. > > i already considered that. > > > do any device trees really use __foo__ names ? i don't think so. > > is there any drawback using '-undef' in this particular case besides > "we use -ansi in other places for the same reason"?
we use -ansi because it's more portable and has known behavior in the build system -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
