On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Luc Van Oostenryck
<luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ifeq ($(HAVE_LLVM),yes)
> +ifeq ($(shell uname -m | grep -q '\(i386\|x86\)' && echo ok),ok)
> LLVM_VERSION:=$(shell $(LLVM_CONFIG) --version)
> ifeq ($(shell expr "$(LLVM_VERSION)" : '[3-9]\.'),2)
> LLVM_PROGS := sparse-llvm
> @@ -106,6 +107,9 @@ else
> $(warning LLVM 3.0 or later required. Your system has version $(LLVM_VERSION) installed.)
> endif
> else
> +$(warning sparse-llvm disabled on $(shell uname -m))
> +endif
> +else
> $(warning Your system does not have llvm, disabling sparse-llvm)
> endif
>
BTW, while I am looking at this, I think the if else testing is getting
a bit too deep for the rules define of sparse-llvm.
Right now we have three excuses not to compile llvm:
1) not x86,
2) LLVM version too old
3) Host does not have llvm.
All of those testing mixing with the actual llvm rules and flags.
I think we can test three level of excuses first, then come to
conclusion of ENABLE_LLVM(or CONFIG_LLVM) or not.
The rules that define sparse-llvm related stuff should just
put inside one level of ENABLE_LLVM.
some thing like:
ifeq ($(ENABLE_LLVM),yes)
LLVM_LDFLAGS = ...
other llvm flags and rules.
endif
Do you want to come up with V2? Or I can apply your current patch
first then do the incremental update on master to use ENABLE_LLVM
or CONFIG_LLVM
Which way do you prefer?
I will need to take a crash very soon. To be continue...
Chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
