Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:40:34 -0800 From: Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> To: Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-testing@freebsd.org" <freebsd-testing@freebsd.org>, Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>, "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Makefile.inc1.patch Message-ID: <8541BFC7-9A0B-4199-97CB-2B29530C8D40@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAOtMX2iG6R03OAGJNuEVODepF%2BaZsMcun0von-gwE-Q45KZSLg@mail.gmail.com> References: <B4D2A908-715F-484F-8028-A1F38884AF3F@gmail.com> <CAOtMX2jQ24JCR2Ct8YKob4MKcHWMhVVv5XG-1usoPWqEOA2OQg@mail.gmail.com> <4A3E3984-73D3-4441-97A7-D58679EFF978@gmail.com> <9775878D-91AB-4BE4-ADFA-32D8DB582AA6@gmail.com> <CAOtMX2hhW9wrN0b4UCKFRS79ata45c-vczMuHMmWcZTic_FeHw@mail.gmail.com> <DA04C3C3-486D-4784-87E2-33A73545A250@gmail.com> <CAOtMX2g-ChC3_hnk=NE1ZDfWOQp36eeAxcXt3f-ccxyRShz64Q@mail.gmail.com> <4DB8E40F-6D7B-41A9-A0FA-B2E241E9A180@gmail.com> <CAOtMX2hbZLu6qmhGEP%2Buf=zP4%2BR5kEq6vj5_Rj1BUXi3LP2rXw@mail.gmail.com> <E8600339-1934-4838-8D23-04F90050A5AE@gmail.com> <321F5F80-8195-4D06-8C43-3CC696C7BA01@gmail.com> <CAOtMX2iG6R03OAGJNuEVODepF%2BaZsMcun0von-gwE-Q45KZSLg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 23, 2014, at 1:39 PM, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> wrote: >> Ugh. Backwards logic (sorry)... >> >> On Jan 23, 2014, at 1:32 PM, Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Jan 23, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Jan 23, 2014, at 1:11 PM, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> 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 setting >>>>>> WITH_ATF ? >>>>>> >>>>>> -Alan >>>>> >>>>> NO_TESTS forces WITHOUT_TESTS to be set. So, if I set NO_TESTS in the various build steps it will force ATF to not be built. For that reason (and that reason alone) I reintroduced WITH_ATF just for Makefile.inc1 (but 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 = (is WITH_ATF defined?) && (is WITHOUT_TESTS defined?) >> >> build_atf_libs = (is WITH_ATF defined?) && (is WITH_TESTS defined?) > > Should that be || instead of && ? Yeah, I’m really allowing myself to get distracted after lunch :(.. >> >>> versus one: >>> >>> build_atf_libs = (is WITHOUT_TESTS defined?) >> >> build_atf_libs = (is WITH_TESTS defined?) >> >>> This allows us pepper NO_TESTS around and thus not build tests in the build process unless they’re _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? Correct :)! Thanks! -Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8541BFC7-9A0B-4199-97CB-2B29530C8D40>