CONFIG_* defines

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 11:44:28PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
>On Wednesday 07 September 2005 14:39, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
>> >Unfortunately, yet another example of how our make dependencies are horked
>> > is that not only does scripts/config not get rebuilt, but a "make clean"
>> > doesn't delete scripts/config/{conf,mconf,mkconfigs}
>>
>> make distclean would (see the "$(MAKE) -C scripts/config clean" there).
>>
>> >Do a "make clean", then delete those three files by hand, and then
>> > rebuild.
>>
>> I was experiencing this on a fresh checkout; abovementioned checkin does
>> result for me in
>> #
>> # (null)
>> #

>> instead of formerly:
>> #
>> # test (forced enabled for use with shell)
>> #

>Huh.
>
>Not a clue.  Haven't got 64-bit hardware to test with on this end.  (Anybody 
>got any ideas?)

I was talking about the "(null)", sorry if i made that not clear.

>What _exactly_ do you do to generate this file?  (Make yesconfig?  make 
>menuconfig?  Make allyesconfig && make menuconfig?)

I see this for all of allnoconfig defconfig allyesconfig menuconfig.

>landley at driftwood:~/busybox/busybox$ svn log -r11329
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>r11329 | landley | 2005-09-05 06:04:30 -0500 (Mon, 05 Sep 2005) | 12 lines
>
>The previous commit left confdata writing out:
>
>CONFIG_NUMERIC_CONSTANT=
>
>And on reading it back in, it would complain that '' was an invalid value for
>that field.  I.E. "make allnoconfig && make" worked fine, but
>"make allnoconfig && make menuconfig" barfed reading in the config file.
>
>So now I have it write out "0" as the blank value.  (It's initialized to the
>default value when the menu becomes visible anyway; I checked.)  That seems
>to work.

I see.
[]
>P.S.  I'd send this directly to you instead of the list, but your ISP is 
>spam-blocking my email.  *shrug*.  My response to anybody spam-blocking my 

They are a little bit inable, i know :(

>email has always been "well, this guy obviously isn't interested in anything 
>I have to say" and moved on, which is why I haven't bothered to mention it 
>before now.  (Vodz's ISP has been doing so for most of a year.  Not my 
>problem...)