2018-02-09 2:19 GMT+09:00 Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>:
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 8:19 AM, Masahiro Yamada
> <yamada.masah...@socionext.com> wrote:
>> This was prompted by the email from Linus today's morning.
>> I implmented this in a rush today, so there are still many TODOs,
>> but I put it here to start discussion.
>> I think it is working, but as you notice, it is tedious to repeat something
>> like follows:
>> config CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR
>> option shell="$CC -Werror -fstack-protector -c -x c /dev/null"
> I do think we want to have the "shell" thing as a generic escape for
> other things too, but *realistically*, the primary target for this is
> compiler flags, and I think we should target that specifically with a
> Doing some statistics, and looking for
> flag = $(call xyz ...)
> patterns in our makefiles (ignoring single uses), it really is
> cc-option that dominates:
> 2 name-fix
> 2 try-run
> 3 __cc-option
> 3 grep-libs
> 3 strip-libs
> 4 flags
> 4 get-executable
> 4 ld-option
> 4 logo-cfiles
> 5 as-option
> 5 cc-cross-prefix
> 6 cc-ldoption
> 6 cc-supports
> 7 cc-option-yn
> 7 tune
> 9 cc-ifversion
> 30 as-instr
> 48 cc-disable-warning
> 239 cc-option
> so I think that's the one that we want to special-case.
> If we then have a _usable_ - but perhaps not wonderful "shell" escape
> to do any random thing (including scripts etc), that will take care of
> the rest, but cc-option is so common that I think it's worth making a
> special Kconfig syntax for them. For all I know, the others aren't
> even worth Kconfig options at all.
>> I was thinking of something like follows:
>> config CC_STACKPROTECTOR
>> option shell="$(CC_OPTION -fstack-protector)"
> I think we should go even further, and just make it be
> config CC_STACKPROTECTOR
> option cc_option="-fstack-protector"
> and actually have the Kconfig language itself have this special-cased.
> And obviously that "option cc_option" would be *implemented* as just
> "option shell", with just some stupid string substitution. So it
> really would be purely a shorthand for readability.
> What do you think?
OK, I will try this way.
> And btw, the patches look nice. What I like in particular is that they
> don't even seem to add a lot of lines: the new shell option code is
> almost balanced out by the Kconfig script simplifications. And maybe
> it's just that I read C a lot better than I read GNU Makefile magic,
> but I think it's more understandable too.
I am glad you like it. :)