On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 11:18:07AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 8:37 AM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 01:16:04PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > > As per our previous discussion > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kbuild/CAKwvOd=x9E=7WcCiieso-CDiiU-wMFcXL4W3V5j8dq7BL5QT+w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > I'm still of the opionion that this should be solved by modifications > > > (permanent or one off) to one's $PATH. > > > > However, I think we could still address Peter's complaint of "there > > should be an easier way for me to use the tools that are already in my > > PATH" with his first iteration of this patch [1], which I feel is > > totally reasonable: > > > > $ make LLVM=-14 > > > > It is still easy to use (in fact, it is shorter than 'CC=clang-14') and > > it does not change anything else about how we build with LLVM. We would > > just have to add something along the lines of > > > > "If your LLVM tools have a suffix like Debian's (clang-14, ld.lld-14, > > etc.), use LLVM=<suffix>. > > "If your LLVM tools have a suffix and you prefer to test an explicit > version rather than the unsuffixed executables ..." Ack, I included this. > > $ make LLVM=-14" > > > > to Documentation/kbuild/llvm.rst. > > > > I might change the patch not to be so clever though: > > > > ifneq ($(LLVM),) > > ifneq ($(LLVM),1) > > LLVM_SFX := $(LLVM) > > endif > > endif > > > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/r/YXqpFHeY26sEbort@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > I'd be much more amenable to that approach. Sounds good, tentative patch attached, it passes all of my testing. There is an instance of $(LLVM) in tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk that I did not touch, as that will presumably have to go through the selftests tree. I can send a separate patch for that later. Peter, is this approach okay with you? If so, would you like to be co-author or should I use a suggested-by tag? Cheers, Nathan
