Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 15:15:18 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Suggestion: modules: ARCHS variable in makefiles Message-ID: <20021106231518.GA1505@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gang, Johns sweep over the drivers to clean up some warnings triggered a thought in me. But enough about that, what about the following: :-) The way we define SUBDIR in src/sys/modules/Makefile has annoyed me enough that I'm willing to spend a not-completely-unlimited time to handle it roughly the same as we do for ports: The makefile for a module lists the architectures it's supposed to work on and is simply skipped if the current (target) architecture is not in the list. The top-level modules Makefile simply lists *all* modules, possibly adjusted by some unrelated knob (such as WANT_EXT2FS_MODULE or NO_IPFILTER). Pros: 1. sys/modules/Makefile will be much cleaner with less duplication. 2. Modules can more easily be build in alphabetical order (ie without making the makefile unreadable). 3. More control for the module specific makefile (localized history). 4. Less tweaking in the top-level makefile when new architectures are being introduced. Cons: 1. Build-time overhead to recurse all modules, including the ones that aren't being built. 2. More work to enable true MI modules (assuming opt-in only) Q: Do people think it's a good approach (ie worth to spend time on)? Q: Is this something that may benefit 5.0-RELEASE or is it something that can better wait (ie spend time now on)? Just a thought, -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021106231518.GA1505>