Re: [PATCH] Makefile: rust-analyzer target: better error handling and comments

[John Hubbard]

On 6/20/24 1:45 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 10:31:53AM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 8:13 AM John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > What exactly did you have in mind for how that should look? The
> > > "make rustavailable" target has some leading *** and some bare
> > > statements, so I'm not quite sure exactly how to lay it out:
> >
> > I was thinking something like:
> >
> >      ***
> >      *** Rust is not available.
> >      ***
> >
> > (the `***` prefix is used also in other similar scripts and by Make itself).
> >
> > However, thinking about it a bit more, we should perhaps just let
> > `rust_is_available.sh` tell the user why it fails, since it is likely
> > the next step the user would do anyway:
> >
> >      $ make LLVM=1 rust-analyzer
> >      ***
> >      *** Rust compiler 'rustc' is too old.
> >      ***   Your version:    1.62.0
> >      ***   Minimum version: 1.78.0
> >      ***
> >      ***
> >      *** Please see Documentation/rust/quick-start.rst for details
> >      *** on how to set up the Rust support.
> >      ***
> >      make[1]: *** [linux/Makefile:1973: rust-analyzer] Error 1
> >      make: *** [Makefile:240: __sub-make] Error 2
> >
> > What do you think? Then there is no need for extra output here and the
> > patch becomes simpler too.

Yes, that's perfect, actually.

> As someone who just ran into the "wait, how do I get rust to build on
> this machine again?" problem, yes, having the link to the documentation
> right there would be helpful.  I did know where to find it, but others
> might not, and it's free to add.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

Right, we get this for free by just letting scripts/rust_is_available.sh
report its results "out loud".

I'll post a v2, and with the comment part split into a separate patch as
requested.


thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA