From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 23 14:28:03 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 995BB10657BE; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:28:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5765B8FC08; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:28:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (66.111.2.69.static.nyinternet.net [66.111.2.69]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E39E146B8E; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:28:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (smtp.hudson-trading.com [209.249.190.9]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPA id EB73A8A025; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:28:01 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: Alexander Leidinger Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:25:55 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.1 (FreeBSD/7.3-CBSD-20100217; KDE/4.3.1; amd64; ; ) References: <20100322.125937.278730673160410010.imp@bsdimp.com> <20100322.203553.752311254955266835.imp@bsdimp.com> <20100323111243.124121qxmpk2c4lc@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20100323111243.124121qxmpk2c4lc@webmail.leidinger.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201003231025.55404.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:28:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.1 at bigwig.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=4.2 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on bigwig.baldwin.cx 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 14:28:03 -0000 On Tuesday 23 March 2010 6:12:43 am Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting "M. Warner Losh" (from Mon, 22 Mar 2010 > 20:35:53 -0600 (MDT)): > > > In message: <201003221605.24538.jhb@freebsd.org> > > John Baldwin 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 writes: > > : > : 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. > > : > : > > : > : 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