On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 06:51:27PM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 10:10:36AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > Right, I think gating on '!COMPILE_TEST' would not be a terrible way to > > introduce it. We would definitely want to remove that dependency as > > soon as possible because we want compile testers to be qble to find > > these problems and have them be noticeable but it should make the > > introduction of CONFIG_OBJTOOL_WERROR less disruptive. > > I want to get CONFIG_OBJTOOL_WERROR merged soon. I'm working on some > other patches to go along with it that will hopefully ease some of the > pain. I'll post those soon and then hopefully we can get it into > linux-next. Sounds good to me, getting it into linux-next will give us a good idea of how disruptive it may be. > I didn't quite follow the OBJTOOL_FLAGS idea. We already have > OBJTOOL_ARGS which allows adding arguments (though not removing them), > was it mean to be something like that? Yes, I should have prefaced "if it does not already exist" since I did not realize that there was already support for adding to objtool arguments via an environment/make variable already. Cheers, Nathan
