Changeset View
Standalone View
share/mk/sys.mk
Show First 20 Lines • Show All 228 Lines • ▼ Show 20 Lines | |||||
FC ?= fort77 | FC ?= fort77 | ||||
FFLAGS ?= -O 1 | FFLAGS ?= -O 1 | ||||
.else | .else | ||||
FC ?= f77 | FC ?= f77 | ||||
FFLAGS ?= -O | FFLAGS ?= -O | ||||
.endif | .endif | ||||
EFLAGS ?= | EFLAGS ?= | ||||
.if !defined(INSTALL_CMD) | |||||
INSTALL ?= install | INSTALL ?= install | ||||
.else | |||||
INSTALL ?= ${INSTALL_CMD} | |||||
imp: This gives me heartburn. Give me a day or so to articulate why please. | |||||
Done Inline ActionsPerhaps because it won't work? sys.mk is read before anything else, so ?= is often meaningless unless a makefile read by sys.mk has already set a value, or a parent has exported a value to environment. sjg: Perhaps because it won't work?
`sys.mk` is read before anything else, so `?=` is often… | |||||
Done Inline ActionsYea, that's why... I just came to that conclusion after looking at something else. I concur: let's change this to babt's one liner because it could work because it isn' until ${INSTALL} is expanded do we also expand ${INSTALL_CMD:Uinstall}. imp: Yea, that's why... I just came to that conclusion after looking at something else. I concur… | |||||
.endif | |||||
Done Inline ActionsIn one line:
bapt: In one line:
> INSTALL ?= ${INSTALL_CMD:Uinstall}
| |||||
Done Inline ActionsWhy do we need to add a level of indirection here? Having 2 variables, INSTALL and INSTALL_CMD that are install seems very odd. rgrimes: Why do we need to add a level of indirection here? Having 2 variables, INSTALL and… | |||||
Done Inline Actions@rgrimes Well, it's not that we need indirection, it's just I think because sys.mk is kinda self-contained (or pretends to be anyway), so it contains its own (re-)definition of pretty much every tool under the sun. It's probably for a good reason to allow compiling out-of-the tree kmods. I did not feel brave enough to add .include src.tools.mk in there, so this is a quick way to make it obey and use proper override when we are doing installkernel. sobomax: @rgrimes Well, it's not that we need indirection, it's just I think because sys.mk is kinda… | |||||
LEX ?= lex | LEX ?= lex | ||||
LFLAGS ?= | LFLAGS ?= | ||||
# LDFLAGS is for CC, _LDFLAGS is for LD. Generate _LDFLAGS from | # LDFLAGS is for CC, _LDFLAGS is for LD. Generate _LDFLAGS from | ||||
# LDFLAGS by stripping -Wl, from pass-through arguments and dropping | # LDFLAGS by stripping -Wl, from pass-through arguments and dropping | ||||
# compiler driver flags (e.g. -mabi=*) that conflict with flags to LD. | # compiler driver flags (e.g. -mabi=*) that conflict with flags to LD. | ||||
LD ?= ld | LD ?= ld | ||||
▲ Show 20 Lines • Show All 103 Lines • Show Last 20 Lines |
This gives me heartburn. Give me a day or so to articulate why please.