From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 23 08:28:15 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E461F1065679; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:28:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexander@leidinger.net) Received: from mail.ebusiness-leidinger.de (mail.ebusiness-leidinger.de [217.11.53.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EB638FC19; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:28:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from outgoing.leidinger.net (pD954FE1C.dip.t-dialin.net [217.84.254.28]) by mail.ebusiness-leidinger.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 333E5844B3D; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:28:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from webmail.leidinger.net (webmail.leidinger.net [192.168.1.102]) by outgoing.leidinger.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3BEA526D; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:28:00 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=Leidinger.net; s=outgoing-alex; t=1269332880; bh=gt0EIbCtEuC3kGtT+4AyU9z/A0OQNdytztUQIZe2okE=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=tKhiNGc4NMFDQwZ9bM71xGUx7iWwu3YyOwmpj5WSEuGzEqExBOsYpKY/zS22nqfg0 nzauv7vUZFeGCMV/dLHBKpzmOB0oUgq4yhqdLy2jWK7RHNg4Y8LRW1kyva44D9aOn0 MFmL8vws5SWSnPwTd9hV/0S50WRM9Zmufv8JE3NirF8PUMn1cFQPuMI3zjmBgSbmEz 3QrjakDyZv2D69OyZnmtcqo1ZGmZROvLeWqFh57cE4cXPJ/m0clg2yIfSHjwQePEFA uOIvhvmiFtf0cwlllGwga+dcP/FZ81bnd0BLV5VQEPjrzwobhQR9j8wHc3C1c4cHRW xLaMvyARUSADg== Received: (from www@localhost) by webmail.leidinger.net (8.14.3/8.13.8/Submit) id o2N8S0qh020500; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:28:00 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net) Received: from pslux.cec.eu.int (pslux.cec.eu.int [158.169.9.14]) by webmail.leidinger.net (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:28:00 +0100 Message-ID: <20100323092800.78582z12asne714w@webmail.leidinger.net> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:28:00 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger To: "M. Warner Losh" References: <20100322123408.16671ijbvmcyux80@webmail.leidinger.net> <201003220941.10525.jhb@freebsd.org> <20100322172104.14234yawbsev0sw8@webmail.leidinger.net> <20100322.125937.278730673160410010.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20100322.125937.278730673160410010.imp@bsdimp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Dynamic Internet Messaging Program (DIMP) H3 (1.1.4) X-EBL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-EBL-MailScanner-ID: 333E5844B3D.AC845 X-EBL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-EBL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, spamhaus-ZEN, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-1.44, required 6, autolearn=disabled, ALL_TRUSTED -1.44, DKIM_SIGNED 0.00, DKIM_VERIFIED -0.00) X-EBL-MailScanner-From: alexander@leidinger.net X-EBL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1269937687.50628@qjnLQo8EKfojd2DS5BllLA X-EBL-Spam-Status: No Cc: rwatson@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CTF patch for testing/review X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:28:15 -0000 Quoting "M. Warner Losh" (from Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:59:37 -0600 (MDT)): > In message: <20100322172104.14234yawbsev0sw8@webmail.leidinger.net> > Alexander Leidinger writes: > : Normally we use MK_xxx for things which are opt-in/opt-out. What about > : using MK_xxx instead of ENABLE_CTF? If people are in favour of MK_xxx, > : what should the xxx part look like? > > Normally we *TEST* MK_XXX for things which are opt-in/opt-out and > require the user to say WITH_XXX or WITHOUT_XXX if they don't like the > default (or want to ensure they get option XXX, even if we turn it off > by default in the future). The default then gets encoded in > bsd.own.mk, and permeates the FreeBSD build system since we include > that everywhere, directly or indirectly. As I was understanding jhb, he proposed to use ENABLE_CTF in a way like we use the MK_XXX, and my question was targetted in this direction. The implementation (location/code) probably needs to be different from how we do it normally, but IMO at least the naming convention (MK_XXX and WITH_CTF/WITHOUT_CTF) can stay... except someone provides a good reason not to use MK_XXX, off course. I asked what name the XXX part should have because in case we want to handle the CTF stuff similar to WITHOUT_SENDMAIL, we need to be able to distinguish the build of e.g. libctf/ctfconvert/ctfmerge and the use of those programs to build binaries with CTF info included. Bye, Alexander. -- In God we trust; all else we walk through. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137