On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 12:32 PM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 4:42 AM Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > One solution is to delete rustc-option-yn since there are no users of it. > > Another solution is to refactor the code. > > Either way, there is no good reason for code duplication. > > > If you keep rustc-option-yn, you can rebased v3 on top of this patch: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20241009102821.2675718-1-masahiroy@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#u I'll rebase on top of that. If we choose to delete rustc-option-yn then I think we should first merge the refactor and then delete it in a follow-up. That way, when someone does need it, they will find the refactored implementation in the git history. Alice
