linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/3, resend] kbuild: improve option checking, Kbuild.include cleanup

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070207201408.GA22699@flower.upol.cz>
Date:	Wed, 7 Feb 2007 21:14:08 +0100
From:	Oleg Verych <olecom@...wer.upol.cz>
To:	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	Horst Schirmeier <horst@...irmeier.com>,
	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>,
	Daniel Drake <dsd@...too.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/3, resend] kbuild: improve option checking, Kbuild.include cleanup

On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 03:36:47PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
[]
> Also please don't add random whitespace, Makefiles are no C files, so 
> different rules apply.

Concerning whitespaces. Unfortunately only after installing i386
distro and checking that `-mcpu' error, i've realized what exactly
whitespace you mean, doc! 

    cc-option-yn = $(call cc-option, "y", "n", $(1))

vs.

    cc-option-yn = $(call cc-option,"y","n", $(1))

gives:

    + gcc ... -mtune=i386 -S -xc /dev/null -o /dev/shm/linux-2.6.20/.22730.null
(0) + echo ' y'

vs.

    + gcc ... -mtune=i386 -S -xc /dev/null -o /dev/shm/linux-2.6.20/.22231.null
(1) + echo y

and here sh1t hits the fun.

I always wondered where are all that whitespaces appearing in gcc
command line -- somebody adds them in makefiles, somebody don't, like
in this comments:

    # cc-option
    # Usage: cflags-y += $(call cc-option, -march=winchip-c6, -march=i586)
                                          ^                  ^
further this is used as this:

    #-mtune exists since gcc 3.4
    HAS_MTUNE       := $(call cc-option-yn, -mtune=i386)
(2) ifeq ($(HAS_MTUNE),y)
    tune            = $(call cc-option,-mtune=$(1),) [note: no whitespace]
    else
    tune            = $(call cc-option,-mcpu=$(1),)
    endif

    [...]

    cflags-$(CONFIG_MPENTIUMIII)    += -march=i686 $(call tune,pentium3)
    cflags-$(CONFIG_MPENTIUMM)      += -march=i686 $(call tune,pentium3)

(2) conflicts with (0), but OK with (1).

Summary: is it better to fix comments, as they are missling?

Thanks, Roman!
____
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/