On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 8:12 AM Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 6:29 AM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I do not like this. > > We do not need to cater to every oddity. > > > > Checking MAKEFLAGS is too much. > > I agree we should not attempt to catch every possible mistake in the > script, but there have been several people hitting precisely this case > (the latest is in the linked thread in the commit message), i.e. some > people read the `Makefile` and notice the script invocation, and go > execute it, but they are unlikely to be aware of the target in that > case. > > > You can check RUSTC/BINDGEN/CC if you persist in this. > > This is fine, and actually we should do it regardless of `MAKEFLAGS`. > I can add it to v2. > > However, that does not cover the same thing as `MAKEFLAGS` is trying > to here. The reason is that even if they see e.g. "RUSTC is not set", > they will not know about how to call the script properly, i.e. through > the `Makefile` target. > > For `RUSTC` and `BINDGEN`, it does not really matter (and we could > give a default to the variable, since the name rarely would be > different). However, for `CC`, the logic that Kbuild uses is more > complex, so it seems best to me to let Kbuild tell us what the actual > compiler is. > > Cheers, > Miguel OK, you maintain this script, so it is up to you. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
