> On 25 Aug 2020, at 12:22, Jürgen Groß <jgr...@suse.com> wrote: > > On 25.08.20 13:16, Bertrand Marquis wrote: >>> On 25 Aug 2020, at 12:06, Jürgen Groß <jgr...@suse.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 25.08.20 12:17, Bertrand Marquis wrote: >>>>> On 25 Aug 2020, at 10:49, Jürgen Groß <jgr...@suse.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 25.08.20 10:48, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 25.08.2020 10:08, Jürgen Groß wrote: >>>>>>> On 25.08.20 09:48, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>>> On 25.08.2020 09:43, Jürgen Groß wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 25.08.20 09:34, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 25.08.2020 09:12, Jürgen Groß wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I think both problems can be solved at the same time via the >>>>>>>>>>> following >>>>>>>>>>> approach: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - collect the data which is reflected in today's CONFIG_ variables >>>>>>>>>>> in a >>>>>>>>>>> single script and store it in a file, e.g in a format like: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> CC_IS_GCC y >>>>>>>>>>> GCC_VERSION 70500 >>>>>>>>>>> CLANG_VERSION 0 >>>>>>>>>>> CC_HAS_VISIBILITY_ATTRIBUTE y >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - check the tool data at each build to match the contents of that >>>>>>>>>>> file >>>>>>>>>>> and either fail the build or update the file and rerun kconfig >>>>>>>>>>> if they >>>>>>>>>>> don't match (I think failing the build and requiring to run a >>>>>>>>>>> "make config" would be the better approach) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - fill the CONFIG_ variable contents from that file in kconfig >>>>>>>>>>> instead >>>>>>>>>>> of issuing the single shell commands >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> While I agree this is a possible model to use (but still not the >>>>>>>>>> one we've inherited from Linux), I fail to see how this addresses >>>>>>>>>> my "developers should be aware of what they do (not) build and >>>>>>>>>> test" concern: There'd still be dependencies of Kconfig options >>>>>>>>>> on the tool chain capabilities, and their prompts therefore would >>>>>>>>>> still be invisible without the tool chain having the needed >>>>>>>>>> capabilities. IOW I only see this to address 2), but not 1). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sorry, I fail to see a problem here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What sense does it make to be able to configure an option which the >>>>>>>>> tools don't support? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Take CET as an example (chosen because that's the one which >>>>>>>> already uses the Kconfig approach, despite my disagreement): It's >>>>>>>> quite relevant to know whether you're testing Xen with it enabled, >>>>>>>> or with it disabled (and hence you potentially missing changes you >>>>>>>> need to make to relevant code portions). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but assuming my suggested changes being made, >>>>>>> wouldn't a .config file setup once with CET enabled (and I assume you'd >>>>>>> try to enable CET on purpose when trying to test CET and you'd realize >>>>>>> not being able to do so in case your tools don't support CET) ensure >>>>>>> you'd never been hit by surprise when some tool updates would remove >>>>>>> CET support? >>>>>> Probably, but that's not my point. With a CET-incapable tool chain >>>>>> you're not prompted whether to enable CET in the first place, when >>>>>> creating the initial .config. It is this unawareness of a crucial >>>>>> part of code not getting built and tested (and likely unknowingly) >>>>>> that I dislike. In fact, after Andrew's patches had gone in, it >>>>>> had taken me a while to realize that in certain of my builds I don't >>>>>> have CET enabled (despite me having done nothing to disable it), and >>>>>> hence those builds working fine are meaningless for any changes >>>>>> affecting CET code in any way. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, this is the result of letting some options depend on others. >>>>> >>>>> This is what I meant regarding the architecture: there are e.g. multiple >>>>> source files in drivers/char/ being built only for ARM or X86, in spite >>>>> of being located outside arch/. And yet you don't see this as a problem, >>>>> even if you are not able to select those drivers to be built when using >>>>> "the other" arch. They are silently disabled. Just like CET in case of >>>>> an incapable tool chain. >>>>> >>>>> So IMO either we ban "depends on" from our Kconfig files (no, I don't >>>>> want to do that), or we use it as designed and make it as user friendly >>>>> as possible. In case we as developers have a special test case then we >>>>> need to check the .config whether the desired settings are really >>>>> present. Having those settings depending on tool capabilities in a >>>>> specific file will make this check much easier. >>>>> >>>>> And BTW, I can't see how setting the tolls' capabilities from e.g. >>>>> arch/x86/Rules.mk is better in any way (see how CONFIG_INDIRECT_THUNK >>>>> got its value in older Xen versions like 4.12). >>>>> >>>>> We can't have everything and I believe automatically disabling features >>>>> which can't work with the current tools is a sane decision. Doing this >>>>> via Kconfig is the better approach compared to Makefile sniplets IMO. >>>> That sounds like a nice feature to have some compiler or tools options that >>>> can be selected or activated in Kconfig. There are some compiler options >>>> mandatory to handle some erratas or XSA that one might want to explicitely >>>> select. >>>> I am bit unsure about the part where some kconfig options would only >>>> be available or not depending on some tests with the compiler being doing >>>> prior to opening the editor. I would guess the menuconfig process would >>>> have to first run some tests and then generated some HAS_ configuration >>>> options depending on the result of the tests. >>>> Did i got the idea right here ? >>>> Is this something somebody tried to do ? >>>> As a user I would more expect that the build process would tell me that my >>>> configuration is invalid because i selected something that is not supported >>>> by my compiler. I might have the chance to just fix my build to use the >>>> right >>>> compiler (like by mistake using x86 toolchain to compile for arm). >>>> We should also be careful not to silently ignore some configuration option >>>> if >>>> one is changing the compiler and the new one does not support an option. >>>> A user would have his configuration and compile using it without >>>> passing through the editor interface and might need to be aware that a part >>>> of his configuration is not valid anymore because the tools he is using >>>> changed. >>>> This is something that could occur a lot when using a distribution >>>> toolchain. >>>> Also there are some compiler option changing so i would more think that >>>> there should be generic configuration options so that in the makefiles we >>>> could have the opportunity to add different compiler options for different >>>> toolchains depending on the version or the type of the toolchain. >>>> To be clear i would see something like: >>>> in kconfig: >>>> COMPILER_OPTION_XXX >>>> bool “activate XXX compiler flag >>>> in Makefile: >>>> ifeq ($(CONFIG_COMPILER_OPTION_XXX), true) >>>> test_compiler_cxx: >>>> $(CC) -xxx dummy.c -o dummy || $(error Your compiler does not support >>>> -xxx) >>>> cc-flags += -xxx >>>> endif >>>> The syntax is wrong here but you get the idea :-) >>> >>> Ah, okay, this is another approach, which might be even more flexible. >>> It would allow to control compiler flags instead of more high level >>> features. >> We might have both, this would also allow to have more high level features >> which are >> doing both adding compiler flags and other stuff, >>> >>> In case we want to go that route we should default COMPILER_OPTION_XXX >>> to the current tool capabilities in order to avoid longer try-and-error >>> loops. >> I am not quite sure how you want to achieve this cleanly. > > Something like (picked an actual example from x86): > > config HAS_COMPILER_OPTION_IBR > bool "Select compiler option -mindirect-branch-register" > default $(cc-option,-mindirect-branch-register) > blah blah blah >
Nice :-) Definitely i would add a “default y if EXPERT” or something equivalent. Bertrand
