Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:05:55 -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: <201003241005.55239.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20100324145941.181387uohp3zdl1o@webmail.leidinger.net> References: <20100322.125937.278730673160410010.imp@bsdimp.com> <201003231025.55404.jhb@freebsd.org> <20100324145941.181387uohp3zdl1o@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 24 March 2010 9:59:41 am Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> (from Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:25:55 -0400): > > > 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. > > Done. I want to have a look if it is possible to do it similar to the > LD_CTF_FLAG way later. > > Currently I have the problem that WITH_CTF is not picked up by kmod.mk > if "makeoptions WITH_CTF=yes" is used in the kernel config. This means > that all makeoptions do not propagate to module builds. > > Any ideas? Hmmmm. That's odd because 'DEBUG=-g' does work. Ah, I think you should patch kern.post.mk to propogate WITH_CTF to modules. This is how it works for DEBUG now: .if defined(DEBUG) MKMODULESENV+= DEBUG_FLAGS="${DEBUG}" .endif -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201003241005.55239.jhb>