From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261331AbVFEToA (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Jun 2005 15:44:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261356AbVFETn7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Jun 2005 15:43:59 -0400 Received: from mail.linicks.net ([217.204.244.146]:21260 "EHLO linux233.linicks.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261331AbVFETn6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Jun 2005 15:43:58 -0400 From: Nick Warne To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: CPU type .config <-> i386/Makefile question[s] Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 20:43:56 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1 References: <200506051458.50307.nick@linicks.net> <20050605174322.GF4992@stusta.de> In-Reply-To: <20050605174322.GF4992@stusta.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200506052043.56547.nick@linicks.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sunday 05 June 2005 18:43, Adrian Bunk wrote: > the specific reason is that kernel 2.4 is in a maintainance mode and > such changes are not considered being worth the risk of breaking > anything anywhere with any of the supported gcc versions. > > In kernel 2.6, this is already handled the way you expect it. > > > Also I notice that if I changed the top level Makefile to include my > > specific CPU, then the i386/Makefile adds += -march=i686 to the build > > lines AFTER CFLAGS~ thus the second one will take precedence (I guess) > > anyway, and the -march CFLAG changes are basically over-ridden? > > Users are not expected to manually set any CFLAGS. > > It might work in your case, but unless you _really_ know what you are > doing you always risk some breakage. I see! Thanks for info. I can do my own patch to play with :-) Nick -- "When you're chewing on life's gristle, Don't grumble, Give a whistle..."