[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFftDdoJFf3DQ2GwTKo3MdcNcxJE2qZE7c8NSAc-yVBeUaVK-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 14:20:27 -0600
From: William Roberts <bill.c.roberts@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Bill Roberts <bill.roberts@...s.arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Makefile: support awk processing of .S files
On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 8:17 PM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 12:38:03AM -0600, Bill Roberts wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 11/14/25 10:23 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> > > * Bill Roberts <bill.roberts@....com> [2025-11-13 13:44:27 -0600]:
> > > > Don't skip .S files when post-processing with awk.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Bill Roberts <bill.roberts@....com>
> > > > ---
> > > > Makefile | 6 ++++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> > > > index a20bafaf..4e62e0b3 100644
> > > > --- a/Makefile
> > > > +++ b/Makefile
> > > > @@ -136,15 +136,17 @@ CC_CMD = $(CC) $(CFLAGS_ALL) -c -o $@ $<
> > > > # Choose invocation of assembler to be used
> > > > ifeq ($(ADD_CFI),yes)
> > > > AS_CMD = LC_ALL=C awk -f $(srcdir)/tools/add-cfi.common.awk -f $(srcdir)/tools/add-cfi.$(ARCH).awk $< | $(CC) $(CFLAGS_ALL) -x assembler -c -o $@ -
> > > > + CCS_CMD = LC_ALL=C awk -f $(srcdir)/tools/add-cfi.common.awk -f $(srcdir)/tools/add-cfi.$(ARCH).awk $< | $(CC) $(CFLAGS_ALL) -x assembler-with-cpp -c -o $@ -
> > > > else
> > > > AS_CMD = $(CC_CMD)
> > > > + CCS_CMD = $(CC_CMD)
> > > > endif
> > > > obj/%.o: $(srcdir)/%.s
> > > > $(AS_CMD)
> > > > obj/%.o: $(srcdir)/%.S
> > > > - $(CC_CMD)
> > > > + $(CCS_CMD)
> > >
> > > i think the x86 cfi awk deletes # and // comments
> > > which affects cpp directives in .S so you cant just
> > > use the awk on .S
> > >
> > > i guess a hack would be to not use # comments in .s,
> > > another to only preprocess first then awk then asm.
> > >
> >
> > Personally, I would love to see all of this go to .S (capital)
> > files and use the C pre-processor for all of this and add the CFI
> > statements directly to the asm. However, it seems MUSL want's the assembly
> > to be "pure" based on the comments and git logs I am
> > seeing. I am more of a fan of seeing everything in the assembly file then
> > chasing down custom scripts that do processing, but I'll do it whatever way
> > the community/maintainers want.
>
> I don't want more preprocessing scripts. The ones that are there are
> there for optional debug functionality, not for anything that alters
> behavior, and it would probably be nicer if we didn't need them.
>
> At the same time, I don't want asm source files that require reading
> include files to interpret what anything means. The long term goal is
> to eliminate as many asm source files as possible, and it might make
> sense to do this before doing anything that requires a lot of
> redundant work on the existing ones. Really the only things that
> should be asm source files
Thanks for responding Rich, I was going to reach back out to see where you
stood on this. I for one am pretty fond of this conceptually even though
I am not a huge fan of incline assembly. I could probably start looking
at MUSL with this concept and float another RFC around that.
rather than inline asm are things that need
> to have an asm entry point/label in order to function -- things like
> __syscal_cp_asm, __unmapself, etc.
I don't think I fully appreciate what you're saying here, but it will probably
become clear as I look at the code. If I have any questions, I'll reach back
out.
Thanks Rich,
Bill
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.
