Re: [PATCH] build: disable sparse-llvm on non-x86

[Christopher Li <sparse@chrisli.org>]

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Luc Van Oostenryck
<luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  ifeq ($(HAVE_LLVM),yes)
> +ifeq ($(shell uname -m | grep -q '\(i386\|x86\)' && echo ok),ok)
>  LLVM_VERSION:=$(shell $(LLVM_CONFIG) --version)
>  ifeq ($(shell expr "$(LLVM_VERSION)" : '[3-9]\.'),2)
>  LLVM_PROGS := sparse-llvm
> @@ -106,6 +107,9 @@ else
>  $(warning LLVM 3.0 or later required. Your system has version $(LLVM_VERSION) installed.)
>  endif
>  else
> +$(warning sparse-llvm disabled on $(shell uname -m))
> +endif
> +else
>  $(warning Your system does not have llvm, disabling sparse-llvm)
>  endif
>

BTW, while I am looking at this, I think the if else testing is getting
a bit too deep for the rules define of sparse-llvm.
Right now we have three excuses not to compile llvm:
1) not x86,
2) LLVM version too old
3) Host does not have llvm.
All of those testing mixing with the actual llvm rules and flags.

I think we can test three level of excuses first, then come to
conclusion of ENABLE_LLVM(or CONFIG_LLVM) or not.

The rules that define sparse-llvm related stuff should just
put inside one level of ENABLE_LLVM.
some thing like:

ifeq ($(ENABLE_LLVM),yes)
    LLVM_LDFLAGS = ...
    other llvm flags and rules.
endif

Do you want to come up with V2? Or I can apply your current patch
first then do the incremental update on master to use ENABLE_LLVM
or CONFIG_LLVM

Which way do you prefer?

I will need to take a crash very soon. To be continue...

Chris