From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/8851 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Support for out-of-tree build Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 18:41:37 -0500 Message-ID: <20151112234137.GD3818@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20151108022920.GL3818@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20151111230848.GZ3818@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20151112145026.GB18372@port70.net> <20151112203048.GB3818@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20151112211024.GC18372@port70.net> <20151112215232.GC3818@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1447371715 7611 80.91.229.3 (12 Nov 2015 23:41:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 23:41:55 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-8864-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Fri Nov 13 00:41:54 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Zx1V3-0005yd-RT for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 00:41:53 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 3188 invoked by uid 550); 12 Nov 2015 23:41:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 3164 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2015 23:41:51 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:8851 Archived-At: On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:35:07PM +0000, Petr Hosek wrote: > > > > What if we put the *.o files for arch asm in the arch dirs rather than > > in the main src dirs. Is there some clean way we could write a rule to > > remove the base .o files from OBJS when the arch-specific .o files are > > there? > > That's what I had in mind and I've already implemented it, but I couldn't > get the *.sub files to work in that setup. However, if we replace them with > Makefile fragments as you suggested it might it might solve that problem. > Let me try that out and I'll let you know whether this is a way to go. I don't see why the same wouldn't work for .sub files: their .o files could be put in their own dirs. But I'd rather get rid of them still and just have the arch provide an ordered list, for the specific subarch, of arch and subarch .s or .c files that should replace the .c files "above" them in the tree. Do you have good ideas for how to do this? Rich