Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC 2/7] WIP: Compilation with ARM DS-6 compiler
Hi Artem, On 19/11/2019 15:16, Artem Mygaiev wrote: Unfortunately this is not the case - we need to specify 2 different targets: 1st is for GNU tools which are still used when building with armclang, for debug symbols dumping etc. (there is no replacement in Arm toolstack for them, and this is not on safety critical path so we are fine) and 2nd is for armclang itself because it has its own triplets definition which is not consistent with those used by GNU tools. Well, in theory they may be different for clang. It just happens they are both similar at the moment. There were also some concern to use CROSS_COMPILE as --target (see [1]), so I think we want to introduce a new option that would happen to be equal to CROSS_COMPILE for clang. Cheers, -- Julien Grall ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC 2/7] WIP: Compilation with ARM DS-6 compiler
Hi Julien On Mon, 2019-11-18 at 06:18 +, Julien Grall wrote: > > On 14/11/2019 14:12, Artem Mygaiev wrote: > > Hello Julien > > Hi, > > > On Thu, 2019-11-14 at 08:19 +0900, Julien Grall wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, 02:15 Artem Mygaiev, < > > > artem_myga...@epam.com > > > > wrote: > > > > Hi Jan, > > > > > > > > Sorry for delayed reply > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 08:31 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > > On 06.11.2019 23:08, Artem Mygaiev wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 4:28 PM Jan Beulich < > > > > > > jbeul...@suse.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On 06.11.2019 10:19, Andrii Anisov wrote: > > > > > > > > --- a/Config.mk > > > > > > > > +++ b/Config.mk > > > > > > > > @@ -221,7 +221,9 @@ CFLAGS += -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > $(call cc-option-add,HOSTCFLAGS,HOSTCC,-Wdeclaration- > > > > > > > > after- > > > > > > > > statement) > > > > > > > > $(call cc-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,-Wdeclaration-after- > > > > > > > > statement) > > > > > > > > +ifneq ($(armds),y) > > > > > > > > $(call cc-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,-Wno-unused-but-set- > > > > > > > > variable) > > > > > > > > +endif > > > > > > > > $(call cc-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,-Wno-unused-local- > > > > > > > > typedefs) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LDFLAGS += $(foreach i, $(EXTRA_LIB), -L$(i)) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... this would be necessary. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am very sorry, this patch does not have a proper > > > > > > description > > > > > > indeed. > > > > > > > > > > > > For this particular change - arm clang does not undestand > > > > > > -Wno-unused-but-set-variable > > > > > > option at all, that is why it is under !$(armds) > > > > > > > > > > But avoiding to add options which the compiler doesn't > > > > > understand > > > > > is the purpose of using cc-option-add, rather than blindly > > > > > adding > > > > > them to CFLAGS. What am I missing here? > > > > > > > > You are right, the script shall check the compiler option and > > > > avoid > > > > including it to CFLAGS. But armclang require '--target=...' to > > > > be > > > > specified in order to operate properly, and the proper fix > > > > shall be > > > > something like this (instead of 'ifneq' hack above): > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Config.mk b/Config.mk > > > > index 01487a7..abe8e44 100644 > > > > --- a/Config.mk > > > > +++ b/Config.mk > > > > @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ cc-option = $(shell if test -z "`echo > > > > 'void*p=1;' | \ > > > > # Usage: $(call cc-option-add CFLAGS,CC,-march=winchip-c6) > > > > cc-option-add = $(eval $(call cc-option-add- > > > > closure,$(1),$(2),$(3))) > > > > define cc-option-add-closure > > > > -ifneq ($$(call cc-option,$$($(2)),$(3),n),n) > > > > +ifneq ($$(call cc-option,$$($(2) $(1)),$(3),n),n) > > > > $(1) += $(3) > > > > endif > > > > endef > > > > > > > > so that CFLAGS that are already defined and include ' > > > > --target=...' > > > > option from config/arm*.mk are passed to compiler to make it > > > > happy. > > > > I > > > > am not sure if this breaks anything else so decided to go with > > > > ugly > > > > 'ifneq' hack and check how this can be solved later on. > > > > > > > > > Why not including --target in CC variable as this was suggested > > > for > > > clang? > > > > In case of armclang --target is not the same as CROSS_COMPILE, we > > would > > need to introduce an extra variable instead of CFLAGS and then pass > > it > > to the compiler in similar way -target passed to clang: > > IHMO, --target (armds) and -target (clang) are exactly the same. You > specify the targeted architecture to build. So I think we need a > similar > approach in the both case. Although, in clang there are a default > one > when not specified. Unfortunately this is not the case - we need to specify 2 different targets: 1st is for GNU tools which are still used when building with armclang, for debug symbols dumping etc. (there is no replacement in Arm toolstack for them, and this is not on safety critical path so we are fine) and 2nd is for armclang itself because it has its own triplets definition which is not consistent with those used by GNU tools. > > I agree that using CROSS_COMPILE is a bit of a stretch (even on > clang). > There was actually a lenghty discussion (see [1]) about the meaning > of > CROSS_COMPILE. Maybe we want to introduce a new variable (e.g. > TARGET) > that can be used to pass the triplet. > > > diff --git a/config/StdGNU.mk b/config/StdGNU.mk > > index 3bf3462..4bcfc58 100644 > > --- a/config/StdGNU.mk > > +++ b/config/StdGNU.mk > > @@ -3,8 +3,8 @@ AR = $(CROSS_COMPILE)ar > > LD = $(CROSS_COMPILE)ld > > ifeq ($(clang),y) > > ifeq ($(armds),y) > > -CC = armclang > > -CXX= armclang > > +CC = armclang --target=$(ARMDS_TARGET) > > +CXX= armclang --target=$(ARMDS_TARGET) > > LD_LTO = armlink --verbose --no_scanlib > > LD
Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC 2/7] WIP: Compilation with ARM DS-6 compiler
On 14/11/2019 14:12, Artem Mygaiev wrote: Hello Julien Hi, On Thu, 2019-11-14 at 08:19 +0900, Julien Grall wrote: On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, 02:15 Artem Mygaiev, < artem_myga...@epam.com> wrote: Hi Jan, Sorry for delayed reply On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 08:31 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: On 06.11.2019 23:08, Artem Mygaiev wrote: On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 4:28 PM Jan Beulich < jbeul...@suse.com wrote: On 06.11.2019 10:19, Andrii Anisov wrote: --- a/Config.mk +++ b/Config.mk @@ -221,7 +221,9 @@ CFLAGS += -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes $(call cc-option-add,HOSTCFLAGS,HOSTCC,-Wdeclaration- after- statement) $(call cc-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,-Wdeclaration-after- statement) +ifneq ($(armds),y) $(call cc-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,-Wno-unused-but-set- variable) +endif $(call cc-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,-Wno-unused-local-typedefs) LDFLAGS += $(foreach i, $(EXTRA_LIB), -L$(i)) ... this would be necessary. I am very sorry, this patch does not have a proper description indeed. For this particular change - arm clang does not undestand -Wno-unused-but-set-variable option at all, that is why it is under !$(armds) But avoiding to add options which the compiler doesn't understand is the purpose of using cc-option-add, rather than blindly adding them to CFLAGS. What am I missing here? You are right, the script shall check the compiler option and avoid including it to CFLAGS. But armclang require '--target=...' to be specified in order to operate properly, and the proper fix shall be something like this (instead of 'ifneq' hack above): diff --git a/Config.mk b/Config.mk index 01487a7..abe8e44 100644 --- a/Config.mk +++ b/Config.mk @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ cc-option = $(shell if test -z "`echo 'void*p=1;' | \ # Usage: $(call cc-option-add CFLAGS,CC,-march=winchip-c6) cc-option-add = $(eval $(call cc-option-add- closure,$(1),$(2),$(3))) define cc-option-add-closure -ifneq ($$(call cc-option,$$($(2)),$(3),n),n) +ifneq ($$(call cc-option,$$($(2) $(1)),$(3),n),n) $(1) += $(3) endif endef so that CFLAGS that are already defined and include '--target=...' option from config/arm*.mk are passed to compiler to make it happy. I am not sure if this breaks anything else so decided to go with ugly 'ifneq' hack and check how this can be solved later on. Why not including --target in CC variable as this was suggested for clang? In case of armclang --target is not the same as CROSS_COMPILE, we would need to introduce an extra variable instead of CFLAGS and then pass it to the compiler in similar way -target passed to clang: IHMO, --target (armds) and -target (clang) are exactly the same. You specify the targeted architecture to build. So I think we need a similar approach in the both case. Although, in clang there are a default one when not specified. I agree that using CROSS_COMPILE is a bit of a stretch (even on clang). There was actually a lenghty discussion (see [1]) about the meaning of CROSS_COMPILE. Maybe we want to introduce a new variable (e.g. TARGET) that can be used to pass the triplet. diff --git a/config/StdGNU.mk b/config/StdGNU.mk index 3bf3462..4bcfc58 100644 --- a/config/StdGNU.mk +++ b/config/StdGNU.mk @@ -3,8 +3,8 @@ AR = $(CROSS_COMPILE)ar LD = $(CROSS_COMPILE)ld ifeq ($(clang),y) ifeq ($(armds),y) -CC = armclang -CXX= armclang +CC = armclang --target=$(ARMDS_TARGET) +CXX= armclang --target=$(ARMDS_TARGET) LD_LTO = armlink --verbose --no_scanlib LD = armlink --verbose --no_scanlib AS = armasm diff --git a/config/arm32.mk b/config/arm32.mk index 5afed07..b4c8fb1 100644 --- a/config/arm32.mk +++ b/config/arm32.mk @@ -4,10 +4,12 @@ CONFIG_ARM_$(XEN_OS) := y CONFIG_XEN_INSTALL_SUFFIX := +ARMDS_TARGET := arm-arm-none-eabi + # Explicitly specifiy 32-bit ARM ISA since toolchain default can be -mthumb: ifeq ($(armds),y) # VE needed -CFLAGS += --target=arm-arm-none-eabi -march=armv7-a +CFLAGS += -march=armv7-a else CFLAGS += -marm # -march= -mcpu= # Use only if calling $(LD) directly. diff --git a/config/arm64.mk b/config/arm64.mk index 46b203d..57a7335 100644 --- a/config/arm64.mk +++ b/config/arm64.mk @@ -4,9 +4,11 @@ CONFIG_ARM_$(XEN_OS) := y CONFIG_XEN_INSTALL_SUFFIX := +ARMDS_TARGET := aarch64-arm-none-eabi + ifeq ($(armds),y) # VE needed -CFLAGS += --target=aarch64-arm-none-eabi -march=armv8.1-a+nofp+nosimd +CFLAGS += -march=armv8.1-a+nofp+nosimd else CFLAGS += #-marm -march= -mcpu= etc # Use only if calling $(LD) directly. But personally, I really do not want to add more build variables and flags (would also drop the 'armds' if I find a way how). Instead, I'd prefer the idea of re-using known CFLAGS during the cc-option tests, but, as I wrote above, wasn't sure if this is a right/safe thing to do, so while working on it I just quickly hacked out the option causing issues limiting amount of changes. The question here is whether the target is
Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC 2/7] WIP: Compilation with ARM DS-6 compiler
Hello Julien On Thu, 2019-11-14 at 08:19 +0900, Julien Grall wrote: > > > On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, 02:15 Artem Mygaiev, < > artem_myga...@epam.com> wrote: > > Hi Jan, > > > > Sorry for delayed reply > > > > On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 08:31 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > On 06.11.2019 23:08, Artem Mygaiev wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 4:28 PM Jan Beulich < > > > > jbeul...@suse.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > On 06.11.2019 10:19, Andrii Anisov wrote: > > > > > > --- a/Config.mk > > > > > > +++ b/Config.mk > > > > > > @@ -221,7 +221,9 @@ CFLAGS += -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes > > > > > > > > > > > > $(call cc-option-add,HOSTCFLAGS,HOSTCC,-Wdeclaration- > > after- > > > > > > statement) > > > > > > $(call cc-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,-Wdeclaration-after- > > statement) > > > > > > +ifneq ($(armds),y) > > > > > > $(call cc-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,-Wno-unused-but-set- > > variable) > > > > > > +endif > > > > > > $(call cc-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,-Wno-unused-local-typedefs) > > > > > > > > > > > > LDFLAGS += $(foreach i, $(EXTRA_LIB), -L$(i)) > > > > > > > > > > ... this would be necessary. > > > > > > > > I am very sorry, this patch does not have a proper description > > > > indeed. > > > > > > > > For this particular change - arm clang does not undestand > > > > -Wno-unused-but-set-variable > > > > option at all, that is why it is under !$(armds) > > > > > > But avoiding to add options which the compiler doesn't understand > > > is the purpose of using cc-option-add, rather than blindly > > > adding > > > them to CFLAGS. What am I missing here? > > > > You are right, the script shall check the compiler option and avoid > > including it to CFLAGS. But armclang require '--target=...' to be > > specified in order to operate properly, and the proper fix shall be > > something like this (instead of 'ifneq' hack above): > > > > diff --git a/Config.mk b/Config.mk > > index 01487a7..abe8e44 100644 > > --- a/Config.mk > > +++ b/Config.mk > > @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ cc-option = $(shell if test -z "`echo > > 'void*p=1;' | \ > > # Usage: $(call cc-option-add CFLAGS,CC,-march=winchip-c6) > > cc-option-add = $(eval $(call cc-option-add- > > closure,$(1),$(2),$(3))) > > define cc-option-add-closure > > -ifneq ($$(call cc-option,$$($(2)),$(3),n),n) > > +ifneq ($$(call cc-option,$$($(2) $(1)),$(3),n),n) > > $(1) += $(3) > > endif > > endef > > > > so that CFLAGS that are already defined and include '--target=...' > > option from config/arm*.mk are passed to compiler to make it happy. > > I > > am not sure if this breaks anything else so decided to go with ugly > > 'ifneq' hack and check how this can be solved later on. > > > Why not including --target in CC variable as this was suggested for > clang? In case of armclang --target is not the same as CROSS_COMPILE, we would need to introduce an extra variable instead of CFLAGS and then pass it to the compiler in similar way -target passed to clang: diff --git a/config/StdGNU.mk b/config/StdGNU.mk index 3bf3462..4bcfc58 100644 --- a/config/StdGNU.mk +++ b/config/StdGNU.mk @@ -3,8 +3,8 @@ AR = $(CROSS_COMPILE)ar LD = $(CROSS_COMPILE)ld ifeq ($(clang),y) ifeq ($(armds),y) -CC = armclang -CXX= armclang +CC = armclang --target=$(ARMDS_TARGET) +CXX= armclang --target=$(ARMDS_TARGET) LD_LTO = armlink --verbose --no_scanlib LD = armlink --verbose --no_scanlib AS = armasm diff --git a/config/arm32.mk b/config/arm32.mk index 5afed07..b4c8fb1 100644 --- a/config/arm32.mk +++ b/config/arm32.mk @@ -4,10 +4,12 @@ CONFIG_ARM_$(XEN_OS) := y CONFIG_XEN_INSTALL_SUFFIX := +ARMDS_TARGET := arm-arm-none-eabi + # Explicitly specifiy 32-bit ARM ISA since toolchain default can be -mthumb: ifeq ($(armds),y) # VE needed -CFLAGS += --target=arm-arm-none-eabi -march=armv7-a +CFLAGS += -march=armv7-a else CFLAGS += -marm # -march= -mcpu= # Use only if calling $(LD) directly. diff --git a/config/arm64.mk b/config/arm64.mk index 46b203d..57a7335 100644 --- a/config/arm64.mk +++ b/config/arm64.mk @@ -4,9 +4,11 @@ CONFIG_ARM_$(XEN_OS) := y CONFIG_XEN_INSTALL_SUFFIX := +ARMDS_TARGET := aarch64-arm-none-eabi + ifeq ($(armds),y) # VE needed -CFLAGS += --target=aarch64-arm-none-eabi -march=armv8.1-a+nofp+nosimd +CFLAGS += -march=armv8.1-a+nofp+nosimd else CFLAGS += #-marm -march= -mcpu= etc # Use only if calling $(LD) directly. But personally, I really do not want to add more build variables and flags (would also drop the 'armds' if I find a way how). Instead, I'd prefer the idea of re-using known CFLAGS during the cc-option tests, but, as I wrote above, wasn't sure if this is a right/safe thing to do, so while working on it I just quickly hacked out the option causing issues limiting amount of changes. > > Cheers, > > -- > Julien Grall ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC 2/7] WIP: Compilation with ARM DS-6 compiler
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, 02:15 Artem Mygaiev, wrote: > Hi Jan, > > Sorry for delayed reply > > On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 08:31 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > > On 06.11.2019 23:08, Artem Mygaiev wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 4:28 PM Jan Beulich < > > > jbeul...@suse.com > > > > wrote: > > > > On 06.11.2019 10:19, Andrii Anisov wrote: > > > > > --- a/Config.mk > > > > > +++ b/Config.mk > > > > > @@ -221,7 +221,9 @@ CFLAGS += -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes > > > > > > > > > > $(call cc-option-add,HOSTCFLAGS,HOSTCC,-Wdeclaration-after- > > > > > statement) > > > > > $(call cc-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,-Wdeclaration-after-statement) > > > > > +ifneq ($(armds),y) > > > > > $(call cc-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,-Wno-unused-but-set-variable) > > > > > +endif > > > > > $(call cc-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,-Wno-unused-local-typedefs) > > > > > > > > > > LDFLAGS += $(foreach i, $(EXTRA_LIB), -L$(i)) > > > > > > > > ... this would be necessary. > > > > > > I am very sorry, this patch does not have a proper description > > > indeed. > > > > > > For this particular change - arm clang does not undestand > > > -Wno-unused-but-set-variable > > > option at all, that is why it is under !$(armds) > > > > But avoiding to add options which the compiler doesn't understand > > is the purpose of using cc-option-add, rather than blindly > > adding > > them to CFLAGS. What am I missing here? > > You are right, the script shall check the compiler option and avoid > including it to CFLAGS. But armclang require '--target=...' to be > specified in order to operate properly, and the proper fix shall be > something like this (instead of 'ifneq' hack above): > > diff --git a/Config.mk b/Config.mk > index 01487a7..abe8e44 100644 > --- a/Config.mk > +++ b/Config.mk > @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ cc-option = $(shell if test -z "`echo 'void*p=1;' | \ > # Usage: $(call cc-option-add CFLAGS,CC,-march=winchip-c6) > cc-option-add = $(eval $(call cc-option-add-closure,$(1),$(2),$(3))) > define cc-option-add-closure > -ifneq ($$(call cc-option,$$($(2)),$(3),n),n) > +ifneq ($$(call cc-option,$$($(2) $(1)),$(3),n),n) > $(1) += $(3) > endif > endef > > so that CFLAGS that are already defined and include '--target=...' > option from config/arm*.mk are passed to compiler to make it happy. I > am not sure if this breaks anything else so decided to go with ugly > 'ifneq' hack and check how this can be solved later on. > Why not including --target in CC variable as this was suggested for clang? Cheers, -- Julien Grall ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC 2/7] WIP: Compilation with ARM DS-6 compiler
Hi Jan, Sorry for delayed reply On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 08:31 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 06.11.2019 23:08, Artem Mygaiev wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 4:28 PM Jan Beulich < > > jbeul...@suse.com > > > wrote: > > > On 06.11.2019 10:19, Andrii Anisov wrote: > > > > --- a/Config.mk > > > > +++ b/Config.mk > > > > @@ -221,7 +221,9 @@ CFLAGS += -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes > > > > > > > > $(call cc-option-add,HOSTCFLAGS,HOSTCC,-Wdeclaration-after- > > > > statement) > > > > $(call cc-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,-Wdeclaration-after-statement) > > > > +ifneq ($(armds),y) > > > > $(call cc-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,-Wno-unused-but-set-variable) > > > > +endif > > > > $(call cc-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,-Wno-unused-local-typedefs) > > > > > > > > LDFLAGS += $(foreach i, $(EXTRA_LIB), -L$(i)) > > > > > > ... this would be necessary. > > > > I am very sorry, this patch does not have a proper description > > indeed. > > > > For this particular change - arm clang does not undestand > > -Wno-unused-but-set-variable > > option at all, that is why it is under !$(armds) > > But avoiding to add options which the compiler doesn't understand > is the purpose of using cc-option-add, rather than blindly > adding > them to CFLAGS. What am I missing here? You are right, the script shall check the compiler option and avoid including it to CFLAGS. But armclang require '--target=...' to be specified in order to operate properly, and the proper fix shall be something like this (instead of 'ifneq' hack above): diff --git a/Config.mk b/Config.mk index 01487a7..abe8e44 100644 --- a/Config.mk +++ b/Config.mk @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ cc-option = $(shell if test -z "`echo 'void*p=1;' | \ # Usage: $(call cc-option-add CFLAGS,CC,-march=winchip-c6) cc-option-add = $(eval $(call cc-option-add-closure,$(1),$(2),$(3))) define cc-option-add-closure -ifneq ($$(call cc-option,$$($(2)),$(3),n),n) +ifneq ($$(call cc-option,$$($(2) $(1)),$(3),n),n) $(1) += $(3) endif endef so that CFLAGS that are already defined and include '--target=...' option from config/arm*.mk are passed to compiler to make it happy. I am not sure if this breaks anything else so decided to go with ugly 'ifneq' hack and check how this can be solved later on. > Jan > > ___ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel__;!K6dmGCEab4ueJg!mfAKUfGDnRPgNHksMlffaLrptu7demkLHApa3STsHRSKyoHnusYbCLzhLjD8K_vpFw$ > ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC 2/7] WIP: Compilation with ARM DS-6 compiler
On 06.11.2019 23:08, Artem Mygaiev wrote: > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 4:28 PM Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 06.11.2019 10:19, Andrii Anisov wrote: >>> --- a/Config.mk >>> +++ b/Config.mk >>> @@ -221,7 +221,9 @@ CFLAGS += -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes >>> >>> $(call cc-option-add,HOSTCFLAGS,HOSTCC,-Wdeclaration-after-statement) >>> $(call cc-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,-Wdeclaration-after-statement) >>> +ifneq ($(armds),y) >>> $(call cc-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,-Wno-unused-but-set-variable) >>> +endif >>> $(call cc-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,-Wno-unused-local-typedefs) >>> >>> LDFLAGS += $(foreach i, $(EXTRA_LIB), -L$(i)) >> >> ... this would be necessary. > > I am very sorry, this patch does not have a proper description indeed. > > For this particular change - arm clang does not undestand > -Wno-unused-but-set-variable > option at all, that is why it is under !$(armds) But avoiding to add options which the compiler doesn't understand is the purpose of using cc-option-add, rather than blindly adding them to CFLAGS. What am I missing here? Jan ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC 2/7] WIP: Compilation with ARM DS-6 compiler
Hello Jan On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 4:28 PM Jan Beulich wrote: > > On 06.11.2019 10:19, Andrii Anisov wrote: > > From: Artem Mygaiev > > > > Still have linker issues > > This may be acceptable for an RFC series, but doesn't justify there > not being any other description. Just to give an example,I'd like to > understand why ... > > > --- a/Config.mk > > +++ b/Config.mk > > @@ -221,7 +221,9 @@ CFLAGS += -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes > > > > $(call cc-option-add,HOSTCFLAGS,HOSTCC,-Wdeclaration-after-statement) > > $(call cc-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,-Wdeclaration-after-statement) > > +ifneq ($(armds),y) > > $(call cc-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,-Wno-unused-but-set-variable) > > +endif > > $(call cc-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,-Wno-unused-local-typedefs) > > > > LDFLAGS += $(foreach i, $(EXTRA_LIB), -L$(i)) > > ... this would be necessary. I am very sorry, this patch does not have a proper description indeed. For this particular change - arm clang does not undestand -Wno-unused-but-set-variable option at all, that is why it is under !$(armds) > > Jan ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC 2/7] WIP: Compilation with ARM DS-6 compiler
On 06.11.2019 10:19, Andrii Anisov wrote: > From: Artem Mygaiev > > Still have linker issues This may be acceptable for an RFC series, but doesn't justify there not being any other description. Just to give an example,I'd like to understand why ... > --- a/Config.mk > +++ b/Config.mk > @@ -221,7 +221,9 @@ CFLAGS += -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes > > $(call cc-option-add,HOSTCFLAGS,HOSTCC,-Wdeclaration-after-statement) > $(call cc-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,-Wdeclaration-after-statement) > +ifneq ($(armds),y) > $(call cc-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,-Wno-unused-but-set-variable) > +endif > $(call cc-option-add,CFLAGS,CC,-Wno-unused-local-typedefs) > > LDFLAGS += $(foreach i, $(EXTRA_LIB), -L$(i)) ... this would be necessary. Jan ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
