Am 20.12.2009 um 19:38 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 12/20/2009 07:30 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 20.12.2009 um 19:22 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 12/18/2009 07:59 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Think of my porposed Makefile patch!
Which one?
In particular my add-on patch for libuser.a, which ta
On 12/20/2009 07:30 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 20.12.2009 um 19:22 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 12/18/2009 07:59 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Think of my porposed Makefile patch!
Which one?
In particular my add-on patch for libuser.a, which tackled exactly that
issue:
http://www.mail-archiv
Am 20.12.2009 um 19:22 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 12/18/2009 07:59 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Think of my porposed Makefile patch!
Which one?
In particular my add-on patch for libuser.a, which tackled exactly
that issue:
http://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg20948.html
A
On 12/18/2009 07:59 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Think of my porposed Makefile patch!
Which one?
Paolo
Hey,
Am 18.12.2009 um 17:16 schrieb Juan Quintela:
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
I just had this race happen on me while building qemu. The
problematic
file in my case was cutils.o. I'm using GNU make's order-only
dependencies to avoid that "make recurse-all" builds the tools as
well.
Signed-o
> Notice that cutils.o (from Makefile) is built in the root dir, and
> cutils.o (from Makefile.user) is built into libuser/ directory.
Ah, since that was the file that was built, that would be a problem
with my reasoning.
Definitely I saw the following in the log
AR libuser.a
CC
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> I just had this race happen on me while building qemu. The problematic
> file in my case was cutils.o. I'm using GNU make's order-only
> dependencies to avoid that "make recurse-all" builds the tools as well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini
>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzi
