On 04/02/2019 20:15, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ramsay Jones <ramsay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On 04/02/2019 18:12, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Ramsay Jones <ramsay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>>> Thanks for a detailed and clear explanation here and in the cover >>>>> letter. I agree with the motivation and most of the things I see in >>>>> this patch, but one thing that stands out at me is if we still want >>>>> to += append to SP_EXTRA_FLAGS in target specific way. Before this >>>>> patch, because SPARSE_FLAGS was a dual use variable, it needed += >>>>> appending to it in these two places, but that rationale is gone with >>>>> this patch. >>>> >>>> As Luc surmised, in his reply, my intention was that SP_EXTRA_FLAGS >>>> should be used for any 'internal' settings (not just the target >>>> specific settings), whereas SPARSE_FLAGS would now be used _only_ for >>>> user customisation. >>> >>> OK, if that is the case, then not using "+= append" on SP_EXTRA_FLAGS >> >> Err, no, that clearly wouldn't be an improvement! As I said above, >> this is not just for target specific settings. > > Ah, do you mean that there may be globally applicable internal > setting? I would have expected that such an option would be done > directly on the command line, e.g. > > $(SP_OBJ): %.sp: %.c GIT-CFLAGS FORCE > $(QUIET_SP)cgcc -no-compile $(ALL_CFLAGS) $(EXTRA_CPPFLAGS) \ > $(SPARSE_FLAGS) $(SP_EXTRA_FLAGS) \ > -Wsparse-settings-for-everybody $< global, possibly, but more likely platform variations - as I tried (but obviously failed) to indicate with the cygwin and MinGW examples in my previous email. ATB, Ramsay Jones
