[PATCH 5/5] libgloss: merge bfin into top-level Makefile

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Feb  7 12:44, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb  5 00:46, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > Avoid a recursive make to speed things up a bit.
> > ---
> >  libgloss/Makefile.am       |   9 +
> >  libgloss/Makefile.in       | 342 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> >  libgloss/bfin/Makefile.in  | 207 ----------------------
> >  libgloss/bfin/Makefile.inc |  71 ++++++++
> >  libgloss/configure         |  33 +++-
> >  libgloss/configure.ac      |   5 +-
> >  6 files changed, 406 insertions(+), 261 deletions(-)
> >  delete mode 100644 libgloss/bfin/Makefile.in
> >  create mode 100644 libgloss/bfin/Makefile.inc
> > + [...]
> > +# Here is all of the development board stuff.
> > +multilibtool_DATA += \
> > +	%D%/crt0.o \
> > +	%D%/basiccrt.o \
> > +	%D%/basiccrts.o \
> > +	%D%/basiccrt561.o \
> > +	%D%/basiccrt561s.o \
> > +	%D%/basiccrt561b.o
> > +# 	%D%/basiccrt60x.o \
> > +#	%D%/basiccrt60xs.o \
> > +#	%D%/basiccrt60xc1.o
> 
> Not sure how you guys actually building and using this stuff think about
> this, but I, for one, am a little put off by this change.  The old code
> in bfin/Makefile.in had a few nice definitions like BOARD_BSP,
> BOARD_CRT0S, SIM_BSP, SIM_CRT0, etc.  Why didn't you take them over?
> 
> That's not saying we can't push this patch, but somehow it's losing
> readability.  Now it's just a list of arbitrary files to create.

Also, what about the install-sim / install-board split?  Do we know
for sure that they are not used by somebody?


Corinna