From owner-freebsd-testing@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 23 21:39:39 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-testing@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B58EE4E7; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 21:39:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wg0-x235.google.com (mail-wg0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2F8E1E98; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 21:39:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id y10so2140179wgg.8 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:39:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1yuOAjxXzm/DwGI4WHHdOTQWI+fIIJdIQbiiYm4ruVY=; b=E3YQMFbZDT9Vl2QLyDT7kqcRezCC9KA6eywvuXglwH3/QrvJD1K4iOsWdsZAnp+YZF +6PwK+yi4W59JiQC03qE5aR76qL6ar8WhfG0MXxbA05QdbOhf1dvx8AI0nAhDCG4uyoR cHeAeO3GU5Z762M+y1fOWuROskjxSxjoncZy8Ol8dvkmXgCZ4kceLVL9I3jc5Hdkh/CC XQqDjZKUsvbYW/bO2MLR1HOw2EIvX/ks7GZc/17zwS4PXJ6BHvmuPJSPgRNd4enRfmWp KOhDIY8hFQWjzwoMidr7mmfNadRjELHYwhD3kdycze8g51C/8av+1h+z+IF3SoOxeQzG TR0Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.73.19 with SMTP id h19mr836897wiv.40.1390513177436; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:39:37 -0800 (PST) Sender: asomers@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.22.35 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:39:37 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <321F5F80-8195-4D06-8C43-3CC696C7BA01@gmail.com> References: <4A3E3984-73D3-4441-97A7-D58679EFF978@gmail.com> <9775878D-91AB-4BE4-ADFA-32D8DB582AA6@gmail.com> <4DB8E40F-6D7B-41A9-A0FA-B2E241E9A180@gmail.com> <321F5F80-8195-4D06-8C43-3CC696C7BA01@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 14:39:37 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Nn9MD_s_vm6yTQFYg93fNlsrYCw Message-ID: Subject: Re: Makefile.inc1.patch From: Alan Somers To: Garrett Cooper Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "freebsd-testing@freebsd.org" , Brooks Davis , "Simon J. Gerraty" X-BeenThere: freebsd-testing@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Testing on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 21:39:39 -0000 On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Garrett Cooper wro= te: > Ugh. Backwards logic (sorry)... > > On Jan 23, 2014, at 1:32 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote= : > >> On Jan 23, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Alan Somers wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Garrett Cooper = wrote: >>>> On Jan 23, 2014, at 1:11 PM, Alan Somers wrote: >>>> >>>>> In that case, I'm missing something. I can't find any makefiles that >>>>> reference MK_ATF or a related variable. What is the effect of settin= g >>>>> WITH_ATF ? >>>>> >>>>> -Alan >>>> >>>> NO_TESTS forces WITHOUT_TESTS to be set. So, if I set NO_TESTS i= n the various build steps it will force ATF to not be built. For that reaso= n (and that reason alone) I reintroduced WITH_ATF just for Makefile.inc1 (b= ut you could replace it with something else like WITH_ATF_LIBS, etc, if the= naming is too confusing). >>>> Thanks! >>>> -Garrett >>> >>> I get that much, but what I don't understand is what direct affect >>> WITH_ATF has. Did you forget to reintroduce a ".if defined(MK_ATF)" >>> in some other file? >> >> No, the purpose of WITH_ATF is to override NO_TESTS, so building the ATF= libs now has two conditions: >> >> build_atf_libs =3D (is WITH_ATF defined?) && (is WITHOUT_TESTS defined?) > > build_atf_libs =3D (is WITH_ATF defined?) && (is WITH_TESTS defined?) Should that be || instead of && ? > >> versus one: >> >> build_atf_libs =3D (is WITHOUT_TESTS defined?) > > build_atf_libs =3D (is WITH_TESTS defined?) > >> This allows us pepper NO_TESTS around and thus not build tests in the bu= ild process unless they=92re _really_ needed (e.g. in make everything). Ok, I think I get it now. It's a recursive thing. At the top level, your patch adds WITH_ATF to MAKE. Then, in a child make process, the presence of WITH_ATF causes _lib_atf to be defined. Is that correct? -Alan