Linux Kernel Selftest development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
Cc: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>,
	Beau Belgrave <beaub@linux.microsoft.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
	Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>,
	Bill Wendling <morbo@google.com>,
	sunliming <sunliming@kylinos.cn>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
	Valentin Obst <kernel@valentinobst.de>,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	llvm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] selftests/lib.mk: handle both LLVM=1 and CC=clang builds
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 10:15:33 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240607171533.GA2636750@thelio-3990X> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0d3fd536-5036-40e7-9783-80533914e32d@arm.com>

On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 12:12:19PM +0100, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 04/06/2024 05:55, John Hubbard wrote:
> > On 6/3/24 3:47 PM, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> >> Does CC=clang even work for the selftests? lib.mk here uses 'CC :=' so
> >> won't CC=clang get overridden to CC=$(CROSS_COMPILE)gcc?
> >>
> > 
> > I received a report that someone (I forget who or what) was definitely
> > attempting to just set CC=clang. But yes, it definitely doesn't work
> > properly for CROSS_COMPILE.
> 
> This history as I recall, is that I got a bug report [1] stating that:
> 
> # tools/testing/selftests/fchmodat2$ make CC=clang
> 
> and
> 
> # tools/testing/selftests/openat2$ make CC=clang
> 
> were both failing due to the -static-libsan / -static-libasan difference between
> gcc and clang. I attempted to fix that with [2], which used cc-option to
> determine which variant to use. That never got picked up, and John
> coincidentally did a similar fix, but relying on LLVM=1 instead.
> 
> If we are concluding that CC=clang is an invalid way to do this, then I guess we
> should report that back to [1]?
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/202404141807.LgsqXPY5-lkp@intel.com/
> [2]
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20240417160740.2019530-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com/

I can only speak from the perspective of the main kernel build, as I
don't really know much if anything about the selftests, but I think
CC=clang and LLVM=1 should both be valid. Ideally, they would behave as
they do for the main kernel build (i.e., CC=clang just uses clang for
the compiler and LLVM=1 uses the entire LLVM tools). I realize that for
the selftests, there is probably little use for tools other than the
compiler, assembler, and linker but I think consistency is desirable
here.

I am not at all familiar with the selftests build system, which is
completely different from Kbuild, but I would ack a patch that does
that. Otherwise, I think having a different meaning or handling of
CC=clang or LLVM=1 is the end of the world, but I do think that it
should be documented.

Cheers,
Nathan

  reply	other threads:[~2024-06-07 17:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-05-31 18:37 [PATCH v2 0/2] selftests/lib.mk: LLVM=1, CC=clang, and warnings John Hubbard
2024-05-31 18:37 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] selftests/lib.mk: handle both LLVM=1 and CC=clang builds John Hubbard
2024-06-03 15:32   ` Mark Brown
2024-06-03 17:09     ` John Hubbard
2024-06-03 20:11       ` John Hubbard
2024-06-03 22:47     ` Nathan Chancellor
2024-06-04  4:55       ` John Hubbard
2024-06-07 11:12         ` Ryan Roberts
2024-06-07 17:15           ` Nathan Chancellor [this message]
2024-06-07 20:13             ` John Hubbard
2024-06-04 13:14       ` Mark Brown
2024-05-31 18:37 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] selftests/lib.mk: silence some clang warnings that gcc already ignores John Hubbard
2024-06-03 21:06   ` John Hubbard
2024-06-03 22:36   ` Nathan Chancellor
2024-06-07 17:23     ` Shuah Khan

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20240607171533.GA2636750@thelio-3990X \
    --to=nathan@kernel.org \
    --cc=beaub@linux.microsoft.com \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
    --cc=justinstitt@google.com \
    --cc=kernel@valentinobst.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
    --cc=morbo@google.com \
    --cc=naresh.kamboju@linaro.org \
    --cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=sunliming@kylinos.cn \
    --cc=usama.anjum@collabora.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox