This is the mail archive of the ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the eCos project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: proposal modification to ecosconfig


Bart Veer wrote:
> 
> Some years back, when eCos builds involved a Tcl script pkgconf.tcl
> rather than the current ecosconfig, I did try experimenting with
> $(AR) but ran into problems. When removing an entry from the archive
> $(AR) would very occasionally get confused and leave behind a broken
> archive. Unfortunately I never managed to produce a clean testcase, so
> I was unable to investigate further. It is possible that this problem
> has gone away by now, but it is also possible that it might still
> manifest for some of the targets and cause further confusion.

I don't understand - we currently use $(AR) already.
 
> Another concern is the two extra invocations of $(AR) for each
> package. That adds a fair bit of file I/O to eCos builds, so I would
> want to consider the actual time overheads when using either a Linux
> or a cygwin host.

That's a valid concern, especially for cygwin. But there aren't _that_ many
packages. And when comparing build performance vs. accuracy, I opt for
accuracy, unless it's really bad.

> As Jifl has already mentioned, there are other problems with the
> current makefile generation code and hopefully a rewrite will happen
> soon - other work permitting. This particular problem would certainly
> be resolved by the rewrite.

But is this patch a reasonable interim solution? If the rewrite is that
close it shouldn't matter ;-).

Jifl
-- 
Red Hat, Rustat House, Clifton Road, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 (1223) 271062
Maybe this world is another planet's Hell -Aldous Huxley || Opinions==mine


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]