On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 05:46:22PM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote:
> On 26/04/2019 16:20, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > --- sparse-0.6.0.orig/Makefile
> > +++ sparse-0.6.0/Makefile
> > @@ -160,7 +160,8 @@ ifeq ($(shell expr "$(LLVM_VERSION)" : '
> > LLVM_PROGS := sparse-llvm
> > $(LLVM_PROGS): LD := g++
> > LLVM_LDFLAGS := $(shell $(LLVM_CONFIG) --ldflags)
> > -LLVM_CFLAGS := -I$(shell $(LLVM_CONFIG) --includedir)
> > +LLVM_CFLAGS := -I$(shell $(LLVM_CONFIG) --includedir) \
> > + $(shell $(LLVM_CONFIG) --cppflags)
> > LLVM_LIBS := $(shell $(LLVM_CONFIG) --libs)
> > LLVM_LIBS += $(shell $(LLVM_CONFIG) --system-libs 2>/dev/null)
> > LLVM_LIBS += $(shell $(LLVM_CONFIG) --cxxflags | grep -F -q -e '-stdlib=libc++' && echo -lc++)
>
> Thanks!
>
> I just tested your patch on cygwin and, as expected, it does
> not introduce any regressions.
>
> However, I should have made it clear that I meant to suggest
> that we should _replace_ the definition of LLVM_CFLAGS with
> that single call to llvm-config. So, I also tested the
> following on cygwin:
>
> $ git diff
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> index f816a50..7e8c2ab 100644
> --- a/Makefile
> +++ b/Makefile
> @@ -165,8 +165,7 @@ ifeq ($(shell expr "$(LLVM_VERSION)" : '[3-9]\.'),2)
> LLVM_PROGS := sparse-llvm
> $(LLVM_PROGS): LD := g++
> LLVM_LDFLAGS := $(shell $(LLVM_CONFIG) --ldflags)
> -LLVM_CFLAGS := -I$(shell $(LLVM_CONFIG) --includedir) \
> - $(shell $(LLVM_CONFIG) --cppflags)
> +LLVM_CFLAGS := $(shell $(LLVM_CONFIG) --cppflags)
> LLVM_LIBS := $(shell $(LLVM_CONFIG) --libs)
> LLVM_LIBS += $(shell $(LLVM_CONFIG) --system-libs 2>/dev/null)
> LLVM_LIBS += $(shell $(LLVM_CONFIG) --cxxflags | grep -F -q -e '-stdlib=libc++' && echo -lc++)
> $
>
> ... which also works! The only difference is that '-I/usr/include'
> is not passed to gcc twice.
>
> Looking at commit 65840c61dc ("build: only need includedir from
> llvm-config", 2018-12-18), Luc only wanted the 'pre-processor'
> flags not all of the '--cflags'. The '--cppflags' argument to
> llvm-config is used for just that. ;-)
>
> If you could confirm that the above works for you also, that
> would be great. Thanks!
Yes, I agree and applied.
Thank both and really sorry for the delay.
-- Luc
