Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 23:06:12 +0200 From: Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org> To: Alexander Kabaev <kabaev@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org>, Oliver Pinter <oliver.pntr@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] fake pre-processor macros when building on non-FreeBSD system Message-ID: <CAOfDtXNNpZj=cJE2Mtwth3sXiAtoFr%2B=pAv-TmrzjG-wOb%2B0kw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110712164337.07e387eb@kan.dnsalias.net> References: <CAOfDtXNqydD_hyvo25Arkm=gdqVcSJB8RPfnFL9xozQfS=UeEQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPjTQNFp8dQBKdFzhPAX1NZ2j%2BLSsffZkOurN0yEb4M%2BpD%2Buow@mail.gmail.com> <CAOfDtXMMej_KORBt1PvAdAL7VvEkzXjpHM=eO_%2BLh=fP5OfWmQ@mail.gmail.com> <20110712164337.07e387eb@kan.dnsalias.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2011/7/12 Alexander Kabaev <kabaev@gmail.com>: > Whatever happened to using a proper cross-tool to do the job? Why would one need to build a cross-compiler in order to compile userland-agnostic code for the same CPU architecture? This would be like requiring a cross-compiler in order to build things like GRUB or SeaBIOS. > Why is this hack needed? The kernel tree expects flags like __linux__ or __FreeBSD__ to have a different meaning when compiling for kernel space. Instead of "we're building code that will run on $foo", they mean "we're building $foo itself". This assumption is correct most of the time, but not always so. My patch addresses some of the situations in which the assumption fails. -- Robert Millan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOfDtXNNpZj=cJE2Mtwth3sXiAtoFr%2B=pAv-TmrzjG-wOb%2B0kw>