On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Christopher Li <sparse@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? Please do as is the easiest for you. I don't mind as I don't have something that depend on it. -- Luc -- 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
