Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:30:42 -0700 From: "Kip Macy" <kip.macy@gmail.com> To: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=" <des@des.no> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Should Xen be a sub-arch or a build option? Message-ID: <b1fa29170710221130o21d8d8a1yb9f69d0dbc5c35c9@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <86lk9ve5bx.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <b1fa29170710212056x5649a858n5202b78fc3e55589@mail.gmail.com> <86lk9ve5bx.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I'd say a kernel option would be the best choice; code that isn't
> relevant for Xen but is otherwise compiled by default can be bracketed
> with #ifndef XEN.
>
The typical response is sub-arch - and that is what I did in my
perforce branch, but I'd like to explore the build option approach as
sub-arch requires a large amount of header duplication or creating
headers that are empty except for including the native headers.
What if, rather than putting ifndef XEN in 10 or 15 files, I instead
added "native" to options.i386 and marked all those files as "native"
in files.i386 and then put "native" in DEFAULTS. That would allow me
to simply add "nooption native" in a XEN kernel config and disable
their compilation without touching the files themselves.
-Kip
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b1fa29170710221130o21d8d8a1yb9f69d0dbc5c35c9>