Re: [PATCH] tools lib api: respect CROSS_COMPILE for the linker

From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc: Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@pengutronix.de,
	patchwork-lst@pengutronix.de, Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com>,
	acme@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools lib api: respect CROSS_COMPILE for the linker
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 14:38:52 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160318173852.GD2701@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160318171623.mih7ozxyinn33ads@treble.redhat.com>

Em Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:16:23PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf escreveu:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 01:45:22PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:38:15AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf escreveu:
> > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 01:25:47PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Which is different from what the kernel does in its main Makefile:

> > # Make variables (CC, etc...)
> > AS              = $(CROSS_COMPILE)as
> > LD              = $(CROSS_COMPILE)ld
> > CC              = $(CROSS_COMPILE)gcc

> > I wonder if we could settle in one of these styles or if there is really
> > a reason to be creative :-)

> > Better, all this could go to tools/scripts/Makefile.include?

> Yeah, I agree that it would be good to come up with a common and
> consistent approach tools-wide if possible.

<SNOP>
> So 'allow-override' would probably be a good option.

Humm, my preference is to make tools/ look like the kernel, and the
kernel doesn't use that allow-override thing, right? So perhaps add what
is missing to make it look exactly like the kernel and then ditch this
allow-override thing?

What about having all this in a single place in tools/script/?

- Arnaldo