[Qemu-devel] Re: [COMMIT 8a2e6ab] Remove CFLAGS parameter in cc-option

[Anthony Liguori]

Juan Quintela wrote:
> malc <address@hidden> wrote:
>   
> > On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Juan Quintela wrote:
> >
> >     
> > > malc <address@hidden> wrote:
> > >       
> > > > On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > > >
> > > >         
> > > > > From: Juan Quintela <address@hidden>
> > > > >
> > > > > With cc-option we are testing if gcc just accept a particular option, we 
> > > > > don't need CFLAGS at all.  And this fixes the recursive problem with 
> > > > > CFLAGS
> > > > >           
> > > > This is nonsense, previous options, those in CFLAGS, might conflict with
> > > > the new ones.
> > > >         
> > > The only thing that we are testing is if gcc support that _option_
> > >
> > > What is the use case tat you have in mind?  A first grep on gcc man page
> > > don't show options that conflict with each other.
> > >       
> > If you want artificial exmaples i can come up with plenty, and from the
> > top of my head -m486 with -msse2 are quite incompatible with each other,
> > furthermore, point is this - testing one option in isolation is broken.
> >     
>
> Ok. For the case that we were using, it don't matter at all.  But in
> general, there "could" (it is only one cc-option call in all sources).
>
> Anthony, what do you preffer:
> - revert the patch and add another one that changes += by :=
>   

No, I don't want to revert this patch and switch to :=.  += should 
work.  I don't understand why it doesn't.

What I'd prefer is for someone to figure out the root cause of += not 
working for us.  If we can't, I'd like a big fat comment stating that 
it's a known deficiency and we'll move on.

--
Regards,

Anthony Liguori