On Tuesday, October 05, 2010 22:33:21 Christopher Li wrote: > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> I wonder, does it make sense to support these kinds of > >> architecture-specific builtins on all architectures, rather than > >> limiting them based on some specified target architecture? > >> > >> Since Sparse doesn't generate code, it can easily target all > >> architectures simultaneously, but that doesn't mean we couldn't tell it > >> what architecture to target. Sparse could default to targeting the > >> host architecture, which would avoid the need to pass extra flags in the > >> common case. > > > > it does sound like it'd be useful to add an arch command line option. > > but i hoped we could sneak in the Blackfin stuff first since other > > arches (like alpha) have been whitelisted. > > Can we have some "ifdef" for the blackfin architecture in the pre buffer? > I agree with Josh, that do look like very much blackfin specific. We can > leave the ignore attribute alone for now. how would #ifdefs help ? i'm not building sparse for a Blackfin arch, host or target wise. if there's something more, you'd have to be specific as to what you mean, otherwise i wont be able to send an updated patch. yes, these things are completely Blackfin specific, but i dont see how that's a barrier for entry when both attributes and the builtin ignore lists contain completely architecture specific stuff without any #ifdef logic. using sparse on the Linux kernel for the Blackfin port is pretty useless atm because of these missing pieces. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
