[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: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:20:22 +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=LjuOVenIWI9/X8r9nQmmnKtWmKzksdqGwlWWm3AjMp2ror15atUvzojlPzjjQOa57spN9MLZfJ8OXLJv5O0S/st4GOZ/OD9HcAJK+pqAPSZ4ZEYcddcu8DEx5kbzzqlpz1hq4JMmdoMErypxEA28mxqJ6rpuZnV5MLgfvo+9kSg=
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <>
On 2/14/07, Atsushi Nemoto <> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:09:32 +0100, "Franck Bui-Huu" <> 
> It should be done by patch #3 instead where CONFIG_BUILD_ELF64 is
> renamed into CONFIG_64BIT_BUILD_ELF32. Any suggestions for a better
> name ?

I think "ELF32" or "ELF64" word is improper while this is irrelevant
to ELF format.  This makes confusion with CONFIG_BOOT_ELF32.

How about simple BUILD_SYM32?  And replase BUILD_ELF32 with
BUILD_SYM32 too?

That's a good point. What about replacing BUILD by KBUILD meaning this
macro is coming from Kbuild itsel ?

And maybe it would be interesting to make obvious that this macro
implies 64-bits kernel. What about something like KBUILD_64BIT_SYM32
and replace 'BUILD_ELF32=no' by 'KBUILD_SYM32=no' ?

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