On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 3:15 AM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:09:03AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:08:14AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > > Update and reorder the documentation to reflect these new additions. > > > At the same time, notate that LLVM=0 is not the same as just omitting it > > > altogether, which has confused people in the past. > > > > Is it worth making LLVM=0 actually act the way it's expected to? > > I don't really see the point, omitting $(LLVM) altogether is simpler. > Why specify LLVM=0 if you want GNU tools, since it is the default? > However, I can look into changing that in a new revision or a follow up > if others disagree? Changing the meaning of LLVM=0 is beyond the scope of what we are trying to achieve now. I think documenting it is enough. (If we have a good reason to change it, we can. But, it should be done in a separate patch, at least) -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
