Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:04:12 -0800 From: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> To: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> Cc: brooks@FreeBSD.org, imp@FreeBSD.org, emaste@FreeBSD.org, toolchain@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Meta mode toolchain bootstrapping [was Re: FreeBSD targets/ out-of-date] Message-ID: <5646423C.2000601@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <21917.1447435324@chaos> References: <55E769EF.7090908@FreeBSD.org> <4924.1441306006@chaos> <56450AB8.90402@FreeBSD.org> <13427.1447371730@chaos> <56453F0D.90206@FreeBSD.org> <21917.1447435324@chaos>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On 11/13/2015 9:22 AM, Simon J. Gerraty wrote:
> Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>>> WITH_META_FILES should give you improvements already in that regard.
>>
>> Yes, it's a step. We'll need cookies in a lot of places too. I wish
>> WITH_META_MODE had been WITH_META_BUILD or WITH_DIRDEPS_BUILD so I could
>
> WITH_DIRDEPS_BUILD would be more accurate.
>
> Its not too late to rename/add it.
My hesitation was really only due to all of the documentation and
presentations you've done with it named "WITH_META_MODE". If you don't
mind renaming I would like to, if nothing else because it will help
remove some confusion on what "meta mode" is when discussing it (since
it's both a bmake feature and a new build).
>
>> check for "META_MODE" in the buildworld world and for discussion sake.
>> It seems I can use ${.MAKE.MODE:M*meta*} but that :U is needed in all
>> the uses. I'm not sure yet if :U really is needed. We have some
>> ${MK_META_MODE} checks now around some cookies that would need to change
>> for what I'm planning.
>
> I think I mentioned the otherday of having something like:
>
> .if ${MK_META_MODE} == "yes"
> # we can safely use cookies to avoid always
> # re-running targets.
> META_COOKIE_TOUCH= touch ${COOKIE.${.TARGET}:U${.TARGET}}
> .else
> META_COOKIE_TOUCH=
> .endif
>
> in meta.sys.mk so you could just add ${META_COOKIE_TOUCH}
> to the end of suitable targets.
Great, thanks. Definitely will be useful.
>
>>> Indeed. As I say, NetBSD have this reasonably sorted.
>>> But of course they have 2k line shell script driving a lot of it ;-)
>>
>> Yes the NetBSD build, behavior wise, really impresses me.
>
> I prefer building it in meta mode though ;-)
>
Yes. I do understand the want of a 'make tools' step as well. I just am
latching onto the "go into bin/cat, type make, and watch the magic" goal
without needing a "oh and btw you sometimes need to build a toolchain if
X, Y or Z". I won't push a forced toolchain into meta mode until I have
something more smart worked up.
--
Regards,
Bryan Drewery
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWRkI9AAoJEDXXcbtuRpfP5EIH/1JcjjaDZ7PoaMwEbkZC/r2O
y86IWQwkmH48QuiJU9DO13nIzY8FREe2wx5C6nHF0rb77/H2Urc8TEEULNGj1E4W
2bQ67erykm/joizyAjBvKKf9/J+6giSMqZMDiNOmeeMaI5JoetrF8ssAMFOvDUT8
rwtCCmLCM2spyLHmrqjHwWsCUqmFpvQkWsw0tf4kNxd7R8H0lFqjXB7L0WYlWjTd
qFEYqavdnZLMgyjv/ywX4I80KCyFMWHt9YSrY9Iawnre9l2fhj+DuVyjtNPhWJfL
yuJa1vHrOsM3kJ+5G1T5TyRKtCoh5QxkwvGlYR2IECtuu31jVax4ymnFpWdaP3o=
=FQFe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5646423C.2000601>