Hello, c/s 17138 introduced the use of VPATH instead of symlinks to access to libelf files. However, that not only provides access to .c files, but also to .o files. That means that if one compiles the hypervisor before the tools, libxenguest.a contains .o files intended to the hypervisor, containing references to printk, etc. and thus is unusable. Is there a good reason against reverting to symlinks, or maybe another way to achieve the same? Samuel _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On 9/6/08 11:42, "Samuel Thibault" <samuel.thibault@eu.citrix.com> wrote:> Hello, > > c/s 17138 introduced the use of VPATH instead of symlinks to access to > libelf files. However, that not only provides access to .c files, but > also to .o files. That means that if one compiles the hypervisor before > the tools, libxenguest.a contains .o files intended to the hypervisor, > containing references to printk, etc. and thus is unusable.You mean c/s 16891?> Is there a good reason against reverting to symlinks, or maybe another > way to achieve the same?vpath %.c ../../xen/common/libelf Perhaps? -- Keir> Samuel > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Keir Fraser, le Mon 09 Jun 2008 11:54:08 +0100, a écrit :> On 9/6/08 11:42, "Samuel Thibault" <samuel.thibault@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > > c/s 17138 introduced the use of VPATH instead of symlinks to access to > > libelf files. However, that not only provides access to .c files, but > > also to .o files. That means that if one compiles the hypervisor before > > the tools, libxenguest.a contains .o files intended to the hypervisor, > > containing references to printk, etc. and thus is unusable. > > You mean c/s 16891?Oops, yes, sorry, I was looking in my own tree.> > Is there a good reason against reverting to symlinks, or maybe another > > way to achieve the same? > > vpath %.c ../../xen/common/libelf > > Perhaps?It does work indeed. I guess we already depend on possibly GNU-only features anyway? Samuel _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 11:58:43AM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:> It does work indeed. I guess we already depend on possibly GNU-only > features anyway?Yes. john _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel