Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] kbuild: evaluate cc-option and friends only when building kernel

[Masahiro Yamada]

2017-10-10 7:04 GMT+09:00 Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:56 PM, Masahiro Yamada
> <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> diff --git a/scripts/Kbuild.include b/scripts/Kbuild.include
>> index 9ffd3dd..222d0a2 100644
>> --- a/scripts/Kbuild.include
>> +++ b/scripts/Kbuild.include
>> @@ -96,6 +96,13 @@ try-run = $(shell set -e;            \
>>         fi;                             \
>>         rm -f "$$TMP" "$$TMPO")
>>
>> +# hostcc-option
>> +# Usage: cflags-y += $(call hostcc-option,-march=winchip-c6,-march=i586)
>> +hostcc-option = $(call __cc-option, $(HOSTCC),\
>> +       $(HOSTCFLAGS) $(HOST_EXTRACFLAGS),$(1),$(2))
>
> I believe you've got a bug here.  You're calling "__cc-option" which
> isn't defined if "need-compiler" is not 1, right?


Good catch!


>> +
>> +ifeq ($(need-compiler),1)
>
> The way this patch works is a bit non-obvious I think.  I wonder if
> anyone else will be confused like I am...
>
> Basically if "need-compiler" is not 1 then things like "cc-option"
> won't be defined at all.  ...but we'll still _call_ them in other
> Makefiles.  This call of an undefined variable will just evaluate to
> an empty string.  Thus, for instance:
>
> CFLAGS_KCOV := $(call cc-option,-fsanitize-coverage=trace-pc,)
>
> ...will just set CFLAGS_KCOV to the empty string if "need-compiler"
> isn't 1, right?
>
>
> I guess that's fine, but maybe at least document it somewhere?  IMHO
> it would be even better if somehow you still defined each of these to
> something bogus in an else clause, like:
>
> as-option = --err_noncompile_target
> as-instr = --err_noncompile_target
> cc-option = --err_noncompile_target
> ...
> ...
>
> The idea being that if someone accidentally invoked the C compiler (or
> if there was some other conditional code in the Makefile based on the
> result of one of these functions) it would be obvious what was going
> on.


Make sense.  Thanks for your idea!



I am still wondering if I should apply this one
because your cache approach provides much more benefits.

(that is why I prefixed this 4/4 with RFC.)


Maybe I will send v2, or maybe not.




-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada