Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1742703
| From | Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulniers@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] kbuild: clang: remove crufty HOSTCFLAGS |
| Date | 2017-10-01 01:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uvzd8-2so-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <utNNf-6PT-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <uuEHU-7Wb-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 07:52:35PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > 2017-09-26 11:28 GMT+09:00 Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulniers@gmail.com>: > > HOSTCFLAGS := -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wstrict-prototypes -O2 \ > > + $(call hostcc-option,-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks) \ > > -fomit-frame-pointer -std=gnu89 $(HOST_LFS_CFLAGS) > > You call hostcc-option > before Kbuild.include is included around line 341. > > So, $(call hostcc-option, ...) returns always an empty string here > whether the compiler supports the option or not. So calling a yet-to-be defined variable results in an empty string rather than a loud failure? Chalk that up there with language features no one ever asked for. That kind of implicit conversion gets languages like JavaScript (with its loose type system, not that C is without its own implicit type conversions/promotions) in a lot of hot water. If that's the case, why are includes not at the top of Makefiles, if silent failure is a possibility? Is there a reason the include is so far into the Makefile? Is your sugguestion to raise the include or lower the HOSTCFLAGS definition? > > -ifeq ($(shell $(HOSTCC) -v 2>&1 | grep -c "clang version"), 1) > > -HOSTCFLAGS += -Wno-unused-value -Wno-unused-parameter \ > > - -Wno-missing-field-initializers -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks > > -endif > > The logic is very strange in the first place. > > Even very old GCC supports -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks, > but clang does not. > > Here, -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks is added only when > we are using clang for HOSTCC. This is opposite. > > I guess we can remove all of them > unless somebody can explain the rationale. +llvm-linux I suppose maybe different ARCH's have different host binaries made during the build? I tested x86_64 and arm64. The commit message that added them missed any context or justification.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH] kbuild: clang: remove crufty HOSTCFLAGS Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> - 2017-09-28 13:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kbuild: clang: remove crufty HOSTCFLAGS Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulniers@gmail.com> - 2017-10-01 01:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kbuild: clang: remove crufty HOSTCFLAGS Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org> - 2017-10-01 02:40 +0200
csiph-web