Re: 64-bit jiffies, a better solution take 2

george anzinger (george@mvista.com)
Sun, 12 May 2002 01:12:14 -0700

Keith Owens wrote:
>
> On Sun, 12 May 2002 01:01:21 +0100,
> Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:38:48AM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> >> Any reason that you are using sed and not cpp like the other
> >> architectures?
> >
> >Only historical and a hatred of cpp's "# line file" stuff, and the fact
> >that ARM needs to use sed elsewhere in the build to get around broken
> >GCC %c0 stuff.

The interesting thing is that, in this case, cpp HAS THE INFO to do the
job, while it would be a bit of a hassel to round it up for sed. I.e. the
endian macro is defined in the cpp build, not in macros naturally available
to make or sed. At the same time any thing make knows can easily be push
into cpp via a command line macro.

~snip

-- 
George Anzinger   george@mvista.com
High-res-timers:  http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
Real time sched:  http://sourceforge.net/projects/rtsched/
Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/