On 2014-10-07 14:27, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 02:13:56PM +0200, Michal Marek wrote: >> This violates the principle of least surprise: >> >> make $file.s >> as -o $file.o $file.s >> >> should be equivalent to >> >> make $file.o > > I know but we need to enable -g for .s targets so that we get the .loc > annotation (i.e., line numbers) in asm which is very helpful. > > But the least surprise principle is a valid point. Maybe we should warn > about it too when building .s targets...? > > Or, maybe I should try to find out whether there's another gcc option > which adds ".loc" annotations alone... Such option would be best of course. BTW, do you know about make $file.lst to produce an 'annotated disassembly'? >> Why not simply check both READABLE_ASM and DEBUG_INFO? Also, it's more >> straightforward to print the warning in the top-level Makefile rule than >> to add a conditional to the generic rule, like this: > > The problem here is that we're building a couple of .s targets > regardless of what the make command contains, like bounds.s and such. The toplevel Makefile rule (where your patch adds the asm_target=$@ variable) is only used for manual invocation. bounds.s and the like are handled by Makefile.build directly. Michal -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
