On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 12:43 PM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 01:29:35PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:47:21AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 08:23:11AM -0800, Sami Tolvanen wrote: > > > > Changing the ThinLTO config to a choice and moving it after the main > > > > LTO config sounds like a good idea to me. I'll see if I can change > > > > this in v8. Thanks! > > > > > > Originally, I thought this might be a bit ugly once GCC LTO is added, > > > but this could be just a choice like we're done for the stack > > > initialization. Something like an "LTO" choice of NONE, CLANG_FULL, > > > CLANG_THIN, and in the future GCC, etc. > > > > Having two separate choices might be a little bit cleaner though? One > > for the compiler (LTO_CLANG versus LTO_GCC) and one for the type > > (THINLTO versus FULLLTO). The type one could just have a "depends on > > CC_IS_CLANG" to ensure it only showed up when needed. > > Right, that's how the stack init choice works. Kconfigs that aren't > supported by the compiler won't be shown. I.e. after Sami's future > patch, the only choice for GCC will be CONFIG_LTO_NONE. But building > under Clang, it would offer CONFIG_LTO_NONE, CONFIG_LTO_CLANG_FULL, > CONFIG_LTO_CLANG_THIN, or something. > > (and I assume CONFIG_LTO would be def_bool y, depends on !LTO_NONE) I'm fine with adding ThinLTO as another option to the LTO choice, but it would duplicate the dependencies and a lot of the help text. I suppose we could add another config for the dependencies and have both LTO options depend on that instead. Sami
