On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:09:03AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:08:14AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
[...]
Update and reorder the documentation to reflect these new additions. At the same time, notate that LLVM=0 is not the same as just omitting it altogether, which has confused people in the past.
Is it worth making LLVM=0 actually act the way it's expected to?
I don't really see the point, omitting $(LLVM) altogether is simpler. Why specify LLVM=0 if you want GNU tools, since it is the default? However, I can look into changing that in a new revision or a follow up if others disagree?
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200317215515.226917-1-ndesaulniers@google.com/ Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220224151322.072632223@infradead.org/ Suggested-by: Masahiro Yamada masahiroy@kernel.org Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra peterz@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor nathan@kernel.org
Looks good; minor .rst nit below...
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org
[...] -LLVM has substitutes for GNU binutils utilities. Kbuild supports ``LLVM=1`` -to enable them. ::
- make LLVM=1
-They can be enabled individually. The full list of the parameters: :: +LLVM has substitutes for GNU binutils utilities. They can be enabled individually. +The full list of supported make variables: ::
": ::" and "::" yield the same result. I think the latter is more readable in non-rendered form. *shrug*
Ack, I'll wait for other feedback before sending v3, unless there is none and Masahiro does not mind fixing it up during application.
Thanks for the review! Nathan