Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:22:09 +0000 From: "imp (Warner Losh)" <phabric-noreply@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: [Differential] [Commented On] D2005: Start of arm64 toolchain support (sufficient for kernel-toolchain) Message-ID: <b38507d780bd6d08320ef3c4cac92d33@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <differential-rev-PHID-DREV-xkiyys7g7nptp5rxbteo-req@FreeBSD.org> References: <differential-rev-PHID-DREV-xkiyys7g7nptp5rxbteo-req@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
imp added a comment. Not quite ready for prime time, and adds extra warts to the build system that don't need to be added to it. INLINE COMMENTS Makefile.inc1:325 This is ugly. Why is aarch64 special? Why wouldn't we need it for sparc64 if we removed ld and gcc? I really don't like this at all. I know it is here for convenience, but there's got to be a more generic way to do it. share/mk/bsd.endian.mk:6 This shouldn't reference MACHINE. I should fix that. share/mk/src.opts.mk:233-238 This is wrong on a number of levels. We generally opt-out of binaries in the .mk files. It allows people to set them to 'yes' even though it can't possibly work. We really need an "__ALWAYS_NO" which could be set based on what arch you are on. I can add that. binuitls might be that specail. gdb certainly isn't. REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D2005 To: emaste, bdrewery Cc: imp, andrew, freebsd-arm
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b38507d780bd6d08320ef3c4cac92d33>