While editing some Makefiles I was wondering what people thought
of using symlinks to processor dependent files instead of nested
ifdefs in Makefiles?
For starters, make arch/ppc/kernel/head.S a symlink to the appropriate
one in that directory, and derive the name to use from one of the
config options. I thought I would ask before demonstrating the change.
Thanks.
-- Dan
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 04:59:22PM -0400, Dan Malek wrote:
While editing some Makefiles I was wondering what people thought
of using symlinks to processor dependent files instead of nested
ifdefs in Makefiles?
For starters, make arch/ppc/kernel/head.S a symlink to the appropriate
one in that directory, and derive the name to use from one of the
config options. I thought I would ask before demonstrating the change.
Also, include/asm is just a lymlink to asm-${arch}.
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 04:23:37PM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote:
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 04:59:22PM -0400, Dan Malek wrote:
quoted
While editing some Makefiles I was wondering what people thought
of using symlinks to processor dependent files instead of nested
ifdefs in Makefiles?
For starters, make arch/ppc/kernel/head.S a symlink to the appropriate
one in that directory, and derive the name to use from one of the
config options. I thought I would ask before demonstrating the change.
Also, include/asm is just a lymlink to asm-${arch}.
Yes, and ARM goes and makes a few other config-dependant symlinks. So
there's precidence (and it'd be easy to setup too, more or less).
--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/