Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 15:24:05 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, Warner Losh <imp@freebsd.org>, Andrew Turner <andrew@fubar.geek.nz> Subject: Re: svn commit: r266349 - in head: share/mk sys/conf Message-ID: <B1164C3E-3E37-415F-9A9E-FAE741FA8BBF@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20140520212004.GU43976@funkthat.com> References: <201405172031.s4HKVY51073386@svn.freebsd.org> <20140518205605.70159532@bender.Home> <20140520211423.GT43976@funkthat.com> <FD5D7BEE-3DC3-4507-A43A-EDAAC1D7EC0E@bsdimp.com> <20140520212004.GU43976@funkthat.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On May 20, 2014, at 3:20 PM, John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> wrote: > Warner Losh wrote this message on Tue, May 20, 2014 at 15:16 -0600: >> >> On May 20, 2014, at 3:14 PM, John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> wrote: >> >>> Andrew Turner wrote this message on Sun, May 18, 2014 at 20:56 +0100: >>>> On Sat, 17 May 2014 20:31:34 +0000 (UTC) >>>> Warner Losh <imp@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Author: imp >>>>> Date: Sat May 17 20:31:34 2014 >>>>> New Revision: 266349 >>>>> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/266349 >>>>> >>>>> Log: >>>>> The time is not yet ripe to break the lack of dependencies between >>>>> src/sys and the rest of the tree for builds. >>>>> o eliminate including bsd.mkopts.mk for the moment in kern.opts.mk >>>>> o No need to include src.opts.mk at all anymore. The reasons for it >>>>> are now coverted in sys.mk and src.sys.mk. >>>> >>>> This breaks ARM kernel builds as MK_ARM_EABI is undefined, at least on >>>> 9.x. The below patch fixes it for me. >>> >>> But isn't armeb's ABI OABI on 9? so defaulting this to yes would change >>> the ABI as you build on 9.x wouldn't it? Or am I just confused by your >>> throwing in 9.x into the mix? >> >> First, this is current only. >> >> Second, I?m not changing the ABI on 9. >> >> Third, building 9.x armeb binaries is unaffected by the host compiler and build environment. It will continue to be what it was last week or last month independent of my changes. > > Oh, I think Andy was complaining about building -HEAD on 9.x, not about > building 9.x ARM... Then this change makes more sense and as you said, > isn't changing the ABI on 9... > > Ok, if that's the case, the confusion has been cleared... Yea, that issue has been corrected. The new build system didn’t define something, and 9.x was incidental… Warner [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJTe8f1AAoJEGwc0Sh9sBEA4JwQAK5ul3bSDzMW6LlrIUT43kMz CKq1RgkTCzkANeXX5IEB5pH2txbrXi7UUFxXO24RliltlTVlt85pja7t6hnofn2g Q8tzEmbu4DFzVjCOxDqof80FTBMP46d1bGwV9cWqDuHPaAOpMZ/Jnn17hKJIfcqR 1OpuetQK9zLOdt5SvKME3bJajTki1MWY6naZxngg9+IIBJw98TYTiB159+ImYGOl q/AolLnCccq4NS6Tl89KtpanOM2p+xYezPJY3tN+EuEdzHVgE6GJv5BiZ3TdvqZv uvQNOy8Ai9BermjEbgjO3MLzO5yw++S/c5bS21MY8EVIb3VFMP8XyNSTJFXfNbZk CiCJIl9r0EYFmhKcXrewnCrJIEV1H/YasfzuGyt5eBmChdKnbDn8mh0oF6VUtiq6 gwAnPz2J0IYnwwSiCHPqr0XvbQlKOOLefnz57AERU8KmrKAxZjn3RUEj7swEEjT0 9MYJ+Y+mqfv70nFGifMnBQzUGN3PFXrkQeFP4pIBpqh6frVLfq47SHGU37kMpX7J YcLhedqUL++KYAbuHc78im7IUohMfyi+Qy4IjONO6Iqer1LFBMLrMMFvvqXYV0SM ZXsojRRm4Rv4lm8PkOKU4DodsHJn5ysRSE+bA0HXRZ2/YcFhVmSBMEMJgszA9P33 vcOYNSDyzT+EIgWHPvGj =YDi+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B1164C3E-3E37-415F-9A9E-FAE741FA8BBF>