On Mon, 2026-09-28 at 12:35 +0000, Marko, Peter wrote: > This patch is sitting in master-next for some time already and is > probably spending a minute or two of everyone's time on each patch > review call.
That is true. > Let's try to do a decision whether to merge it or drop it. > I (without asking or rewording via AI) think this: > > I see following ways how to approach this clang-tidy problem: > - make clang-tidy architecture aware upstream > - add these flags to tell it the architecture (what this patch > proposes and what was present in scarthgap) > - add it only to recipes which use clang-tidy (or other similar clang > tools) > > clang-tidy (and this also applies to some other clang support tools) > is in principle architecture independent. > Linter should not care about build arch, correct?, it just needs to > know the paths to sources. > So imho making it architecture dependent would go in a wrong > direction, probably wasting time of whoever develops this and > upstream clang maintainers. > > Explicit set of architecture globally looks like a better choice. > Yocto currently does not set the triplet in build flags, because it's > hardcoded in toolchain and thus "it works" (however as we see here, > only in 99.9% of cases) > For clang compiler it's a no-op (the value is the same as value that > it has hardcoded during its compilation). > And it helps all "arch-independent" clang tools to find the right > headers. > > Having a special handling for clang-tidy in all recipes using it is > certainly possible, but seems to be sub-par. > Yocto should support clang-tidy workflows natively. I think several of us all have mixed feelings on it. On the one hand it fixes a problem. On the other, the rest of clang doesn't need this and these kinds of flags, once added, are very very hard to remove again. I guess we lack enough data to make an informed choice and are worried about sending this in the wrong direction if we reject it, equally, we don't really want to make a change like this as it doesn't feel right. We are therefore struggling to reach a decision :/. Even trying to articulate that in a way you can take some action on is hard, hence it is sitting there :/ Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#246763): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/246763 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/120852316/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
