linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] kbuild: Support clang-$ver builds

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: <65a89f36d36443af9b13c1b121731ef1@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Oct 2021 08:56:32 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Nick Desaulniers' <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        "llvm@...ts.linux.dev" <llvm@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] kbuild: Support clang-$ver builds

From: Nick Desaulniers
> Sent: 29 October 2021 00:28
...
> > > 2. Update the documentation to describe using the
> > >
> > >    $ PATH=/usr/lib/llvm-#/bin:$PATH make LLVM=1 ...
> > >
> > >    trick. This has been the preferred method for using different
> > >    versions of LLVM but it has never been documented anywhere. This
> > >    would allow us to keep the current build infrastructure while giving
> > >    people clear instructions for how to handle different versions of
> > >    clang. As Peter has noted, this would require people who are not
> > >    familiar with building with LLVM to be constantly looking at the
> > >    documentation to remember the command to invoke, whereas with
> > >    LLVM=-#, it is easy to remember.
> >
> > Right, this is no more than a crude hack and is super unfriendly. It
> > should never have been accepted.
> 
> Lots of tools modify PATH in your `.bashrc` or `.zshrc` etc.  I don't
> see how that's any different, other than one off commands in which you
> actually intend to use a specific version.

Nothing should be modifying the default $PATH, either by hacking
my .bashrc or any system default files that get run first.

It is as horrid and broken as setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
Even ldconfig is pretty much a broken idea.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)