From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/4091 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: ELLCC updated to musl 0.9.14 Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 13:26:08 -0400 Message-ID: <20130929172608.GJ20515@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <52482A0B.2040109@pennware.com> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1380475580 20206 80.91.229.3 (29 Sep 2013 17:26:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 17:26:20 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-4095-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sun Sep 29 19:26:24 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VQKlD-0005DF-Fu for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 19:26:23 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 5322 invoked by uid 550); 29 Sep 2013 17:26:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 5309 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2013 17:26:21 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52482A0B.2040109@pennware.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:4091 Archived-At: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 08:24:27AM -0500, Richard Pennington wrote: > Hi, > > I've updated the musl version of the clang/LLVM based ELLCC compiler > suite to use musl release 0.9.14. > As usual the musl guys have been doing a great job. The new release > looks great! > > http://ellcc.org Nice to hear! > I dis have to make a few small changes to the configure script. The > main one was that the warning the clang gives if a warning option is > not supported is a warning, not an error. I added -Werror to > tryflag. Other than that I just loosened up the target names a bit. > > -- /home/rich/configure 2013-09-28 09:40:01.387766267 -0500 > +++ configure 2013-09-28 09:52:55.758633462 -0500 > @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ > tryflag () { > printf "checking whether compiler accepts %s... " "$2" > echo "typedef int x;" > "$tmpc" > -if $CC "$2" -c -o /dev/null "$tmpc" >/dev/null 2>&1 ; then > +if $CC -Werror "$2" -c -o /dev/null "$tmpc" >/dev/null 2>&1 ; then My concern here is that gratuitous warnings for unrelated reasons (e.g. a weird but valid flag added into $CC) could prevent detection of supported flags. Here, false negatives (failing to detect support for a flag that's actually needed) are worse than false positives (detecting support for a flag that will spam warnings during build). I'd rather find some other method of solving this problem with clang and other compilers that are treating unsupported gcc options as warnings rather than errors... > -mips-*|mipsel-*) ARCH=mips ;; > -microblaze-*) ARCH=microblaze ;; > +mips*|mipsel*) ARCH=mips ;; > +microblaze*) ARCH=microblaze ;; For microblaze this is probably correct (to also get microblazeel or whatever), but for mips, it will wrongly pick up mips64 as being mips. When mips64 support is added, it will be a separate arch and thus need a separate case here. > powerpc-*) ARCH=powerpc ;; > +ppc*) ARCH=powerpc ;; This could be simplified as: powerpc-*|ppc-*) ARCH=powerpc ;; Rich