On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 11:05:05AM +0100, Nicolas Schier wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 04:58:30AM +0100 Nicolas Schier wrote: > > On Mon 12 Dec 2022 10:21:10 GMT, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 12:03:52PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > > Documentation/process/changes.rst notes the minimal GNU Make version, > > > > but it is not checked anywhere. > > > > > > > > We could check $(MAKE_VERSION), but another simple way is to check > > > > $(.FEATURES) since the feature list always grows although this way > > > > is not always possible. For example Make 4.0 through 4.2 have the > > > > same set of $(.FEATURES). > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Reviewed-by: Nicolas Schier <nicolas@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Changes in v3: > > > > - Check the version in a different way > > > > > > > > Makefile | 5 +++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile > > > > index 2dda1e9a717a..66dfc5751470 100644 > > > > --- a/Makefile > > > > +++ b/Makefile > > > > @@ -11,6 +11,11 @@ NAME = Hurr durr I'ma ninja sloth > > > > # Comments in this file are targeted only to the developer, do not > > > > # expect to learn how to build the kernel reading this file. > > > > > > > > +# Ensure Make >= 3.82 > > > > +ifeq ($(filter undefine,$(.FEATURES)),) > > > > +$(error Make $(MAKE_VERSION) is too old) > > > > > > Would it make sense to state what version is needed, similar to the > > > Kconfig checks for compiler and binutils? > > > > Checking against 'undefine' (introduced in make-3.82~38) is quite a > > nice way, I think. Otherwise we needed something like > > $(filter 3.82% 3.9% 4.% 5.% ..., $(MAKE_VERSION)). > > > > Nathan, sorry, I somehow I read your question completely wrong. I would also > appreciate if the minimum make version would be shown in the error message. No worries, I have done that many a time :) I see Masahiro updated this to v4 with this feedback taken into consideration so I am glad to see we are all in agreement. Cheers, Nathan
