Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 09/15] samples/bpf: use own flags but not
 HOSTCFLAGS
To:     ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, yhs@fb.com,
        davem@davemloft.net, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com, hawk@kernel.org,
        john.fastabend@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com, ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org
References: <20191011002808.28206-1-ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org>
 <20191011002808.28206-10-ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org>
 <99f76e2f-ed76-77e0-a470-36ae07567111@cogentembedded.com>
 <20191011095715.GB3689@khorivan>
 <3fb88a06-5253-1e48-9bea-2d31a443250b@cogentembedded.com>
 <20191012212643.GC3689@khorivan>
From:   Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>
Message-ID: <03db016e-5337-0207-3d17-0b3bbe79fa5c@cogentembedded.com>
Date:   Sun, 13 Oct 2019 20:06:24 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20191012212643.GC3689@khorivan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 13.10.2019 0:26, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:

>>>>> While compiling natively, the host's cflags and ldflags are equal to
>>>>> ones used from HOSTCFLAGS and HOSTLDFLAGS. When cross compiling it
>>>>> should have own, used for target arch. While verification, for arm,
>>>>
>>>>   While verifying.
>>> While verification stage.
>>
>>   While *in* verification stage, "while" doesn't combine with nouns w/o
>> a preposition.
> 
> 
> Sergei, better add me in cc list when msg is to me I can miss it.

    Hm, the earlier mails were addressed to you but no the last one --
not sure what happened there, sorry.

> Regarding the language lesson, thanks, I will keep it in mind next
> time, but the issue is not rude, if it's an issue at all, so I better
> leave it as is, as not reasons to correct it w/o code changes and
> everyone is able to understand it.

    Up to you. and the maintainer(s)...

>>>>> arm64 and x86_64 the following flags were used always:
>>>>>
>>>>> -Wall -O2
>>>>> -fomit-frame-pointer
>>>>> -Wmissing-prototypes
>>>>> -Wstrict-prototypes
>>>>>
>>>>> So, add them as they were verified and used before adding
>>>>> Makefile.target and lets omit "-fomit-frame-pointer" as were proposed
>>>>> while review, as no sense in such optimization for samples.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org>
>>>> [...]

MBR, Sergei