On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 02:00:41PM +0200, Michal Marek wrote: > On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 08:17:21PM -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > These might be used by the user to specify extra arguments for the host > > > compiler. > > > > > Do'h... the original patch was against -rc1 and changed both > > HOST_EXTRACFLAGS and HOST_LOADLIBES, but I cherry-picked it to be > > against your `for-next' and more particularly commit 7080e47bb, which > > removes the assignation of HOST_LOADLIBES. As I didn't pay attention > > and kept the plural :/ > > I changed it to "this". > > > Anyway, with this patch and specifying HOST_EXTRACFLAGS in the > > environment rather than as a gmake(1) argument, it is properly > > appended. nconf links and runs fine on NetBSD. It should not impact > > other environment. > > OK, applied. I do not mind the patch in question. But do we really want to allow users to override HOST_EXTRACFLAGS? For the builtin stuff we have a lot of options to override stuff: CFLAGS_MODULE, AFLAGS_MODULE, LDFLAGS_MODULE CFLAGS_KERNEL, AFLAGS_KERNEL KAFLAGS, KCFLAGS, KCPPFLAGS Maybe we should formalize it so we give users a _documented_ way to add additional options to the host CC? As per above this could be: HOSTCFLAGS Patch is simple - but what do you think? Sam -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
