On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 9:00 PM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 2:32 AM Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.compiler b/scripts/Makefile.compiler > > index 057305eae85c..08d5b7177ea8 100644 > > --- a/scripts/Makefile.compiler > > +++ b/scripts/Makefile.compiler > > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ TMPOUT = $(if $(KBUILD_EXTMOD),$(firstword $(KBUILD_EXTMOD))/).tmp_$$$$ > > # automatically cleaned up. > > try-run = $(shell set -e; \ > > TMP=$(TMPOUT)/tmp; \ > > + export RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP=1; \ > > > try-run is not Rust-specific. > > Is there any reason why you did not add it > to __rustc-option? > > > __rustc-option = $(call try-run,\ > RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP=1 $(1) $(2) $(3) --crate-type=rlib > $(srctree)/rust/probe.rs --out-dir=$$TMP,$(3),$(4)) I had an explanation for this in the commit message, but it looks like it got lost when I rewrote it for v2. Anyway, the reason is that I'd have to modify both __rustc-option and rustc-option-yn to do that, and putting it here seemed more future-proof against making the same mistake in any rustc-* commands added in the future. But I realize that it's not clear-cut. I'm happy to move it if you prefer, or perhaps add a try-run-rust. Let me know what you think. > I guess it is still suspicious because the top-level Makefile > exports RUCTC_BOOTSTRAP. Moving the declaration of RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP to the top of the Makefile seems to fix it. I guess moving it is probably a better solution than adding it in scripts/Makefile.compiler. Not that I really understand why that is. The existing invocations are in scripts/Makefile.kasan which is invoked after RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP is declared. Alice
