On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 1:41 AM Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 01:01:27PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 8:07 AM Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > This is somewhat cargo-culted from the libbpf build. It will be used > > > in a subsequent patch to query for Clang BPF atomics support. > > > > > > Change-Id: I9318a1702170eb752acced35acbb33f45126c44c > > > > Haven't seen this before. What's this Change-Id business? > > Argh, apologies. Looks like it's time for me to adopt a less error-prone > workflow for sending patches. > > (This is noise from Gerrit, which we sometimes use for internal reviews) > > > > Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/.gitignore | 1 + > > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+) > > > > All this just to detect the support for clang atomics?... Let's not > > pull in the entire feature-detection framework unnecessarily, > > selftests Makefile is complicated enough without that. > > Then the test build would break for people who haven't updated Clang. > Is that acceptable? > > I'm aware of cases where you need to be on a pretty fresh Clang for > tests to _pass_ so maybe it's fine. I didn't mean to drop any detection of this new feature. I just didn't want a new dependency on tools' feature probing framework. See IS_LITTLE_ENDIAN and get_sys_includes, we already have various feature detection-like stuff in there. So we can do this with a one-liner. I just want to keep it simple. Thanks.
