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: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 14:15:31 -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 1:49 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me> wrote: > > > > 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) > > The main reason is that I'd like to only have one (at least one per > Makefile) place where we specify expected library dependencies. In my > extern libbpf change I was adding explicit dependency on zlib, for > instance, and having to grep for -lxxx to see where I should add -lz > is error-prone and annoying. Nothing beyond that. Makes sense, agreed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists