[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 10:16:37 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9] Build process uses script to add CFI
directives to x86 asm
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 07:33:54AM +0200, Alex wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 09:18:08PM +0200, Alex Dowad wrote:
> > > ../configure now checks CFLAGS as well as CFLAGS_AUTO to see if
> > generation of debug
> > > info was requested.
> > >
> > > The idea of removing duplication from the Makefile using a new AS_CMD
> > variable has
> > > come up several times, but this will not work because the arguments need
> > to be
> > > inserted in different places. I have tried using a Makefile 'define'
> > instead.
> > > Please see whether you like the way this code reads or not.
> > >
> > > Subarch asm files are treated the same as other asm files. Please note
> > that
> > > since I don't own the hardware, I can't test whether these Makefile
> > rules work or not.
> >
> > I should have mentioned -- the CFLAGS_ALL_STATIC/_SHARED variants are
> > meaningless to asm, so it would work fine to just use $(CFLAGS_ALL);
> > then there's no need for fancy tricks, and a simple make variable
> > should work, I think.
>
> A simple make variable works for the non-subarch rules. But what to do for
> the subarch rules, which use $(dir $<)$(shell cat $<)?
A nasty complication: some of the .sub files sub-in a .c file instead
of a .s file. This is horribly nasty and probably not something I
should have done. x86 is not affected, but it probably means we should
not try applying the CFI stuff in the makefile to .sub rules yet.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
