[uClinux-dev] Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] m68k: remove duplicate memcpy() implementation

Geert Uytterhoeven geert at linux-m68k.org
Thu Jun 2 03:43:09 EDT 2011

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 07:18, Greg Ungerer <gerg at snapgear.com> wrote:
> On 26/05/11 16:38, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> I was more thinking along the lines of !CONFIG_M68000&&  !CONFIG_M68010
>> &&  !CONFIG_<whatever Coldfire that doesn't support it>.
> Or in this case (and probably most cases) we could just switch
> to using the same positive logic. So what I had as:
> #if defined(__mc68020__) || defined(__mc68030__) || \
>    defined(__mc68040__) || defined(__mc68060__) || defined(__mcpu32__)
> becomes
> #if defined(CONFIG_M68020) || defined(CONFIG_M68030) || \
>    defined(CONFIG_M68040) || defined(CONFIG_M68060) || \
>    defined(CONFIG_MCPU32)
> There currently isn't a CONFIG_MCPU32, but I could easily add
> that (we only have one CPU in that class currently supported,
> the 68360).
> The compiler setting won't matter, only what we configured.
> Sam will probably like this better, he suggested using the
> kernel configs initially, in
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-m68k/msg03609.html

Pure positive logic won't work in the (currently stil pathological) case you're
building a multi-platform kernel, and have both CONFIG_M68020 and a lesser
one that doesn't support cpu32 instructions selected.



Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

More information about the uClinux-dev mailing list