netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf] selftests/bpf: bring back c++ include/link test

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: <20191202214935.GA202854@mini-arch>
Date:   Mon, 2 Dec 2019 13:49:35 -0800
From:   Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] selftests/bpf: bring back c++ include/link test

On 12/02, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 12:28 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com> wrote:
> > +# Make sure we are able to include and link libbpf against c++.
> > +$(OUTPUT)/test_cpp: test_cpp.cpp $(BPFOBJ)
> > +       $(CXX) $(CFLAGS) $^ -lelf -o $@
> 
> let's use $(LDLIBS) instead here
Sure, I'll send a v2 with $(LDLIBS); it might be worth doing for
consistency.

Just curious: any particular reason you want to do it?
(looking it tools/build/features, I don't see any possible -lelf
cross-dependency)