Linus Torvalds writes:
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Keith Owens wrote:
> > LINK_FIRST is processed in the order it is specified, so a.o will be
> > linked before z.o when both are present. See the patch.
>
> So why don't you do the same thing for obj-y, then?
>
> Why can't you do
>
> LINK_FIRST=$(obj-y)
>
> and be done with it?
Hmm, so why don't we just call it obj-y and be done with it? ;)
Since someone kindly enlightened me that LINK_FIRST was unsorted, I'm finding
it very hard to grasp what the difference is between an unsorted LINK_FIRST
and unsorted LINK_LAST list, and an unsorted obj-y list. From what I
understand, obj-y = $(LINK_FIRST) $(LINK_LAST) ?
Therefore, there is little difference between:
LINK_FIRST = a.o z.o
LINK_LAST = y.o p.o
and
obj-y = a.o z.o y.o p.o
I still don't see what LINK_FIRST and LINK_LAST gains us, other than
potentially more confusion. Instead of having one order-dependent
variable, we now have 2. Please enlighten me further!
_____
|_____| ------------------------------------------------- ---+---+-
| | Russell King rmk@arm.linux.org.uk --- ---
| | | | http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html / / |
| +-+-+ --- -+-
/ | THE developer of ARM Linux |+| /|\
/ | | | --- |
+-+-+ ------------------------------------------------- /\\\ |
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 21:00:30 EST