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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2019 01:47:34 +0200 From: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org> To: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me> Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>, john fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com, ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org, sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com, Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 11/15] libbpf: don't use cxx to test_libpf target On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 08:32:11AM -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: >On 11/21, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 1:42 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me> wrote: >> > >> > On 10/11, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: >> > > No need to use C++ for test_libbpf target when libbpf is on C and it >> > > can be tested with C, after this change the CXXFLAGS in makefiles can >> > > be avoided, at least in bpf samples, when sysroot is used, passing >> > > same C/LDFLAGS as for lib. >> > > Add "return 0" in test_libbpf to avoid warn, but also remove spaces at >> > > start of the lines to keep same style and avoid warns while apply. >> > Hey, just spotted this patch, not sure how it slipped through. >> > The c++ test was there to make sure libbpf can be included and >> > linked against c++ code (i.e. libbpf headers don't have some c++ >> > keywords/etc). >> > >> > Any particular reason you were not happy with it? Can we revert it >> > back to c++ and fix your use-case instead? Alternatively, we can just >> > remove this test if we don't really care about c++. >> > >> >> No one seemed to know why we have C++ pieces in pure C library and its >> Makefile, so we decide to "fix" this. :) >It's surprising, the commit 8c4905b995c6 clearly states the reason >for adding it. Looks like it deserved a real comment in the Makefile :-) I dislike changing things like this, but I was asked while review and it seemed logical enough. The comment could prevent us from doing this. > >> But I do understand your concern. Would it be possible to instead do >> this as a proper selftests test? Do you mind taking a look at that? >Ack, will move this test_libbpf.c into selftests and convert back to >c++. -- Regards, Ivan Khoronzhuk
Powered by blists - more mailing lists