From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.tuxdriver.com (charlotte.tuxdriver.com [70.61.120.58]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECCE15948 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 19:36:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [2001:470:8:a08:215:ff:fecc:4872] (helo=localhost) by smtp.tuxdriver.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1WbCiG-0007z2-IF; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:36:36 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:36:29 -0400 From: Neil Horman To: Thomas Monjalon Message-ID: <20140418173629.GA6597@localhost.localdomain> References: <1397585169-14537-2-git-send-email-nhorman@tuxdriver.com> <465940823.XQ0HDUOTVm@xps13> <20140418131849.GC4053@localhost.localdomain> <49923176.Wq7YvMNVY1@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49923176.Wq7YvMNVY1@xps13> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-Spam-Status: No Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 01/15 v2] makefiles: Fixed -share command line option error X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 17:36:37 -0000 On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 03:29:01PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2014-04-18 09:18, Neil Horman: > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 01:23:19PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > I think that CPU_LDFLAGS should be prefixed with -Wl, in case of CC > > > linking. So blindly assigning CC to LD variable seems a bad idea. > > > Other makefiles have different O_TO_S commands depending of LINK_USING_CC. > > > > I'm not so sure about that. Or more specifically, I wonder if some more > > rework isn't needed here. I say that because, while what you say makes > > sense in terms of formatting the CPU_FLAGS variable for use with CC, the > > only current use of CPU_LDFLAGS set -melf_i386, which IIRC is a gcc flag, > > not meant to be passed to LD. I can change the makefile to completely > > rewrite the comand based on LINK_USING_CC, but it seems to me that > > CPU_LDFLAGS should not be passed in the use of the LD case. > > Right, -melf_i386 shouldn't be a LDFLAG. > Feel free to fix it. > By the way, It's cleaner to prepare -Wl prefixing and keep an empty LDFLAGS. > Right, We're heading into a long weekend here. On monday I'll clean this up by separating the LD and CC commands based on LINK_USING_CC, and pass the proper options to each. Neil > -- > Thomas >