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 always fixed for arm64/arm32.
Are the two triplets used the only existing for armds?
Cheers,
[1] <20190327184531.30986-2-julien.gr...@arm.com>
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
