Re: [PATCH] m32r: set CHECKFLAGS properly

Kyle Moffett
2005-09-27T17:32:04Z

On Sep 27, 2005, at 12:34:55, Al Viro wrote:
> *Hell*, no.
> 1) any use of cross-gcc is immediately b0rken
> 2) anything like building i386 on amd64 (native toolchain, -m32
> in arguments) is b0rken

So s/gcc/$(SOME_MAKEFILE_VARIABLE)/g I was simplifying for the sake
of suggestion/example; adding in support for all of those is
nontrivial and best left to those who thoroughly understand the
kernel Makefile system (IE: Not me :-D).

> 3) way, way, *WAY* too much spew. gcc pre-defines shitloads of
> stuff and some of that stuff very definitely should not be there
> for sparse.

Why not? Some of that stuff may get used in kernel headers, which
sparse should definitely have defined. Besides, sparse is designed
to check C source code, which will be compiled with said GCC using
those preprocessing defines. Why should it use a different set of
defines?

> IOW, it's not that simple. You need final CC, CFLAGS and CPPFLAGS
> for that.

See responses to (1) and (2)

> Moreover, your variant won't do at all - change .config and you
> might need to rebuild that file on biarch platforms (parisc and
> s390 at the very least; ppc/ppc64 are also moving in that direction).

We do far worse messes in per-arch Makefiles, and this seems
reasonably easy to put in an arch-generic makefile, unless there is
some significant complication you didn't mention.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

--
I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you
looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated.
-- Poul Anderson