Subject: Re: obj.${MACHINE_ARCH} etc
To: Chris G. Demetriou <>
From: Ben Harris <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 04/18/2001 17:52:18
On 18 Apr 2001, Chris G. Demetriou wrote:

> (Ben Harris) writes:
> > Clearly (to me), what's needed is for builds of the same MACHINE_ARCH to
> > be able to share objdirs.  Clearly, also, this won't always be
> > appropriate.
> Actually, in fact, in a bug-free(*) environment, it _will_ always be
> appropriate.

Yeah, but we're a long way from there at the moment.

> Given that arm32 is currently being split up, perhaps it makes sense
> to make it the first guinea pig for:
> 	* install $(MACHINE_ARCH) includes as /usr/include/machine
> 	* install all of the $(MACHINE) variants in /usr/include
> 	* for user programs which have /usr/include/$(MACHINE)
> 	  dependencies, make them code for that explicitly.

I'd have no objection to that.  How would this work for kernel compiles,
though?  Would they stay the same as they are now (so <machine/foo.h>
would get <${MACHINE}/foo.h> in the kernel and <${MACHINE_ARCH}/foo.h> in

> Actually, the more that I think about it, the more
> /usr/include/machine/$(MACHINE) makes sense to me, rather than totally
> littering /usr/include with $(MACHINE)-named subdirs...

Heh.  I was looking at the ARMLinux Web pages today.  They have the
equivalent of 67 different MACHINEs.

Ben Harris                                                   <>
Portmaster, NetBSD/arm26               <URL:>