[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 2/3] Automatically set CONFIG_BUILD_ELF64

To: "Atsushi Nemoto" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Automatically set CONFIG_BUILD_ELF64
From: "Franck Bui-Huu" <>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:36:56 +0100
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=HC1/13Pykf4h5QPJIgIkD65qZrlRK6DbftFvBIPAElUXgc2xmGvPuxfaHPTomU0P3XDu9khlBCIfC9zNwgYq1K1kwta3WZbEQMgMSnaUBWlAn9nP1vuj3HAk9XUyO6nu8cvoh78lmM27f0tQu9rjLM+bduqsQz5SZSgRFZLIm/w=
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <>
On 2/14/07, Atsushi Nemoto <> wrote:
Same here.  I just think introducing one name is better than two name.
I also feel "make KBUILD_SYM32=0" is more consistent.

Yes I agree KBUILD_SYM32 seems better for command line usage but I
think it won't be used widely unlike in code usage where
KBUILD_64BIT_SYM32 is better because it's really self explaned and not
ambigous: "build a 64 bits kernel with 32 bits symbols".

And I think it's more important.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>