Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:25:55 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net> Cc: rwatson@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CTF patch for testing/review Message-ID: <201003231025.55404.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20100323111243.124121qxmpk2c4lc@webmail.leidinger.net> References: <20100322.125937.278730673160410010.imp@bsdimp.com> <20100322.203553.752311254955266835.imp@bsdimp.com> <20100323111243.124121qxmpk2c4lc@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 23 March 2010 6:12:43 am Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> (from Mon, 22 Mar 2010 > 20:35:53 -0600 (MDT)): > > > In message: <201003221605.24538.jhb@freebsd.org> > > John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > : On Monday 22 March 2010 3:05:12 pm M. Warner Losh wrote: > > : > In message: <20100322.125937.278730673160410010.imp@bsdimp.com> > > : > M. Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> writes: > > : > : In message: <20100322172104.14234yawbsev0sw8@webmail.leidinger.net> > > : > : Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> 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. > > : > : > > : > : The problem is that bsd.own.mk is not included in sys.mk, nor should > > : > : it be. That's why we have the hacky combination of WITH_CTF and > > : > : NO_CTF that's there today. > > : > : > > : > : : Is bsd.kern.mk included in module builds too? > > : > : > > : > : Yes. > > : > > > : > One last thing I should have said was that the patch that was posted > > : > earlier in the thread looked ok, and likely couldn't be made > > : > significantly better due to the bsd.own.mk issue. > > : > > : I think the patch is a good approach, I just think it needs to > > default to not > > : enabling CTF by default. Instead, various bsd.foo.mk should selectively > > : enable it. > > > > I should have added that bit as well... > > And here it is: > http://www.leidinger.net/test/ctf2.diff > > Please pay attention to one XXX comment. Both cases I describe look > possible, but I would like to get some more eyes on this issues to not > overlook something. I would maybe put a comment in front of the CFLAGS+= line for now and leave the rest of the XXX comment. I'm not sure of the best way to solve this yet. > I haven't renamed the NO_CTF part yet. Bikeshed: ENABLE_CTF / ADD_CTF > / MK_CTF / MK_CTFINFO / MK_CTFINC / ...? Cast your vote please. I think the naming stuff you have used is fine. I think it is better to use NO_CTF rather than MK_CTF because this is not set via bsd.own.mk but is a special case. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201003231025.55404.jhb>