From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:05:26 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Report from the Buildroot Meeting in Berlin In-Reply-To: <51578cf5-58ba-38ce-6fee-6535784bd150@mind.be> References: <20161019221035.2350c181@free-electrons.com> <20161021102556.10d9a5e6@free-electrons.com> <51578cf5-58ba-38ce-6fee-6535784bd150@mind.be> Message-ID: <20161021110526.7829792f@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 10:57:28 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > That being said, what matters to me is that we improve the code to make > > it clear which flags go in the wrapper and which flags do not. Having a > > TARGET_WRAPPER_CFLAGS separate from TARGET_EXTRA_CFLAGS will make this > > very clear, which TARGET_CFLAGS being set to $(TARGET_WRAPPER_CFLAGS) > > $(TARGET_EXTRA_CFLAGS). > > +1 to the naming. Although I think I'll call it TARGET_FLAGS because we will > use them for LDFLAGS and CXXFLAGS and FCFLAGS as well. Yes, absolutely. I had forgotten about that, but I continue to agree with TARGET_FLAGS, which is then used to set all of CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS, LDFLAGS and FCFLAGS. Thanks, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com