On 14.10.2024 18:32, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 4:31 PM Anthony PERARD > <anthony.per...@vates.tech> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 09:53:28AM +0100, Frediano Ziglio wrote: >>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/boot/Makefile b/xen/arch/x86/boot/Makefile >>> index 1199291d2b..23ad274c89 100644 >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/boot/Makefile >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/boot/Makefile >>> @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ >>> obj-bin-y += head.o >>> +obj-bin-y += built_in_32.o >> >> I don't quite like that this new object name is "built_in_32.o", >> It's really closed to "built_in.*" which is used by Rules.mk to collect >> all objects in a subdirectory. I don't really have a better suggestion at >> the moment. >> > > It was cbundle.o before, but people preferred built_in_32.o. > It's a collection of object files like built_in.o so it does not seem > so bad to me. > But seen other replies, some other people prefer "bundle".
Well, I for one don't really _prefer_ bundle. I merely see it as a possible option to address Anthony's name ambiguity concern. >>> + $(LD32) $(orphan-handling-y) -N -T $< -Map >>> $(obj)/built_in_32.$(*F).map -o $(obj)/built_in_32.$(*F).o >>> $(obj)/built_in_32.tmp.o >> >> I think this wants to be: -T $(filter %.lds,$^) -Map $(patsubst >> %.bin,%.map,$@) -o $(patsubst %.bin,%.o,$@) $(filter %.o,$^) >> >> :-(, maybe that's lots of $(patsubst,), not sure which is better between >> $(patsubst,) and using the stem $*. >> > > Not strong about stem or patsubst. > The 2 filters seem good, they suggest lds for the script and objects > for the input, which makes sense. > >> Also, if something tries to use built_in_32.tmp.bin, we have a rule that >> remove it's prerequisite. >> >> BTW, everything is kind of temporary in a build system, beside the few >> files that we want to install on a machine, so having a target named >> with "*tmp*" isn't great. But having a rule that create "*tmp*" file but >> remove them before the end of its recipe is fine (or those *tmp* aren't >> use outside of this recipe). >> > > Mumble... yes, I think the XX.tmp.o was a temporary internal rule file. > So we still don't agree on one name, and now we want to find also > another, tricky. > More or less if it can help, one is a 32 bit object file that bundle > together multiple 32 bits object files while the other is the > conversion of the 32 bits bundle file to 64 bits. > XXX_32.o and XXX_32as64.o ?? Whatever the eventual name (I don't care all that much), just one request: Dashes instead of underscores please. Jan
