From owner-freebsd-testing@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 23 21:40:38 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-testing@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04B596D4; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 21:40:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pd0-x22f.google.com (mail-pd0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B34971EBA; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 21:40:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pd0-f175.google.com with SMTP id w10so2277019pde.34 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:40:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=YjNf3c5txTAKrTGyiwRbWLbxNTSnUPq8R4+Cuiiastc=; b=ZmnAr+pHSztZdGLV2bEG4GM+S6pvdqxGiUoc3w09gQOVTOBw3gbhui94lEe+Ze8aq5 sPJTkY4aOqfO+gp6f/y0scT0Rs8rwSqv/2PEhcIA9yQyOjJmUtpFx2FDN8G4cLUdZ6ue sCljBMUg8PymVPBbDUhqHUcH2BjSJpfRtfBCmtsbjKGYnhBN4npims/ojFLiKx20x9rb p3GZKKUM3i4AaoN5Au9YfX8KfPRLaDkfljfrR7KKNXRKEMXNQvJv9wuaq3ilfkuxdfUu w5JFvRP0gwg2XRnc4eVD8TZUPcuzBP2kJvr6HKR2HM99NBWJGK6K8ViO8iKqemqFqP6i bLFQ== X-Received: by 10.68.170.66 with SMTP id ak2mr10393321pbc.5.1390513237399; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:40:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from fuji.zcorp.zonarsystems.com ([64.14.143.130]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id tu3sm41386476pbc.40.2014.01.23.13.40.35 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:40:36 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) Subject: Re: Makefile.inc1.patch From: Garrett Cooper In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:40:34 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8541BFC7-9A0B-4199-97CB-2B29530C8D40@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> To: Alan Somers X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) 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 21:40:38 -0000 On Jan 23, 2014, at 1:39 PM, Alan Somers wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Garrett Cooper = wrote: >> Ugh. Backwards logic (sorry)... >>=20 >> On Jan 23, 2014, at 1:32 PM, Garrett Cooper = wrote: >>=20 >>> On Jan 23, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Alan Somers = wrote: >>>=20 >>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Garrett Cooper = wrote: >>>>> On Jan 23, 2014, at 1:11 PM, Alan Somers = wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>>> 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 ? >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> -Alan >>>>>=20 >>>>> 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 >>>>=20 >>>> 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? >>>=20 >>> No, the purpose of WITH_ATF is to override NO_TESTS, so building the = ATF libs now has two conditions: >>>=20 >>> build_atf_libs =3D (is WITH_ATF defined?) && (is WITHOUT_TESTS = defined?) >>=20 >> build_atf_libs =3D (is WITH_ATF defined?) && (is WITH_TESTS defined?) >=20 > Should that be || instead of && ? Yeah, I=92m really allowing myself to get distracted after lunch = :(.. >>=20 >>> versus one: >>>=20 >>> build_atf_libs =3D (is WITHOUT_TESTS defined?) >>=20 >> build_atf_libs =3D (is WITH_TESTS defined?) >>=20 >>> This allows us pepper NO_TESTS around and thus not build tests in = the build process unless they=92re _really_ needed (e.g. in make = everything). >=20 > 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=