From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kselftest-owner@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73C9DC433FE
	for <linux-kselftest@archiver.kernel.org>; Tue,  8 Mar 2022 16:36:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1348371AbiCHQhV (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kselftest@archiver.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 8 Mar 2022 11:37:21 -0500
Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:59360 "EHLO
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1348375AbiCHQhU (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 8 Mar 2022 11:37:20 -0500
Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [IPv6:2001:8b0:10b:1236::1])
        by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB9A751311;
        Tue,  8 Mar 2022 08:36:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:
        References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:
        Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description;
        bh=qk8gZa9N3AskrJn2j9FvrWIxAqKPjieXt9y5DlvxdVg=; b=lrKkBtItZ2p0f2KTpxQ+dZGQZC
        2Bahna8JsffcfVNGoy7ANQZRPXBf952KhT1nd/gh9B+Pke6cQShXh1wJ5atv7Xyp1Slw/FjFodVm6
        V8Qf6JP8samqQGZPFZ/EZHZFEMe0qiuyurSuDwEePDS1RHVPLRo8RRzDwhcdT3qYsKgIUTzstvjbi
        aDCLF3aRRua6uYS0S6ZW/T/mhP9uzzqGBb8WvGwz8jkz6JU03cvSJSHpaD7d62L7yR2ASIAhbMxC1
        VshtmVQ7dvksoCnIuJQ26SyYM1Ji5bEegEYhs7VU9RiERk0SV5p4wfQtE/orOS9lXkqbD1DFMhdDr
        eDKnFi2w==;
Received: from willy by casper.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux))
        id 1nRcor-00GLFR-Uu; Tue, 08 Mar 2022 16:36:18 +0000
Date:   Tue, 8 Mar 2022 16:36:17 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Cc:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kbuild: Make $(LLVM) more flexible
Message-ID: <YieGARVP2dhn8tbQ@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20220304170813.1689186-1-nathan@kernel.org>
 <CAKwvOd=Q-7vPaRPj1wQagFsY3txcAKzrqU_D2UAX3h4ym91uUA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKwvOd=Q-7vPaRPj1wQagFsY3txcAKzrqU_D2UAX3h4ym91uUA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kselftest.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 11:08:29AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > +``LLVM=0`` is not the same as omitting ``LLVM`` altogether, it will behave like
> > +``LLVM=1``.
> 
> Hmm... I can see someone's build wrappers setting LLVM=1, then them
> being surprised that appending LLVM=0 doesn't disable LLVM=1 as they
> might expect.  But Masahiro says let's fix this later which is fine.

What happens if you say LLVM= instead of LLVM=0 ?  Would that "undo"
a prior LLVM=1 and use GCC instead?