> On 24 May 2023, at 09:01, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: > > On 24.05.2023 09:39, Luca Fancellu wrote: >>> On 23 May 2023, at 17:37, Anthony PERARD <anthony.per...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> Instead of having a special $(cmd_asm-offsets.s) command, we could >>> probably reuse $(cmd_cc_s_c) from Rules.mk, but that would mean that >>> an hypothetical additional flags "-flto" in CFLAGS would not be >>> removed anymore, not sure if that matter here. >>> >>> But then we could write this: >>> >>> targets += arch/$(TARGET_ARCH)/$(TARGET_SUBARCH)/asm-offsets.s >>> arch/$(TARGET_ARCH)/$(TARGET_SUBARCH)/asm-offsets.s: CFLAGS-y += -g0 >>> arch/$(TARGET_ARCH)/include/asm/asm-offsets.h: >>> arch/$(TARGET_ARCH)/$(TARGET_SUBARCH)/asm-offsets.s FORCE >>> >>> instead of having to write a rule for asm-offsets.s >> >> The solution above seems clean, maybe I am wrong but -flto should not matter >> here as we are >> not building objects to include in the final build, isn’t it? And gcc >> documentation states just: >> >> “It is recommended that you compile all the files participating in the same >> link with the same >> options and also specify those options at link time." >> >> I’ve also tested this patch and it works fine, I have to say however that I >> preferred >> a more verbose output, so that people can check how we are invoking the >> compiler, >> but I guess now it’s more consistent with the other invocations that doesn’t >> print >> the compiler invocation. > > If you want it more verbose, you can pass V=1 on the make command line. > (Of course that'll affect all commands' output.)
Yes I have to say that after sending the mail, I’ve checked the Makefile and I’ve found the comment # To put more focus on warnings, be less verbose as default # Use 'make V=1' to see the full commands Thank you for pointing that out > > Jan
