Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210729165039.23896-1-ndesaulniers@google.com>
 <20210729165039.23896-3-ndesaulniers@google.com> <44117d0c-51b7-1f68-f752-ba53de503b14@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <44117d0c-51b7-1f68-f752-ba53de503b14@kernel.org>
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Jul 2021 17:19:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdm0xs4ikb0K0_b8Az0T=Kxu_-6AHjWHOhjsKZb3hTrH2A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] Makefile: infer CROSS_COMPILE from SRCARCH for
 CC=clang LLVM_IAS=1
To:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>,
        Fangrui Song <maskray@google.com>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 2:00 PM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> While I understand that the LLVM=1 LLVM_IAS=1 case works perfectly fine
> with this series, I am of the belief that making it work for CC=clang
> LLVM_IAS=1 is a mistake because there is no way for that configuration
> to work for cross compiling without CROSS_COMPILE.

So with v3 of this change, rather than:

$ ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- make CC=clang -j72

If you wanted to omit CROSS_COMPILE, you'd need:

$ ARCH=arm64 make CC=clang LLVM_IAS=1 LD=ld.lld OBJCOPY=llvm-objcopy
STRIP=llvm-strip

or

$ ARCH=arm64 make CC=clang LLVM_IAS=1 LD=aarch64-linux-gnu-ld
OBJCOPY=aarch64-linux-gnu-objcopy STRIP=aarch64-linux-gnu-strip

That's straight up worse IMO and defeats the purpose of "shortening
the command line," which should be the goal.  Not "making CC=clang
maximally flexible."  We don't want folks generally using CC=clang;
preferably they'd use LLVM=1.  I need to rewrite our docs to make that
more explicit and straightforward.  And if folks would prefer to use
CC=clang for whatever reason, let them explicitly state CROSS_COMPILE
then.

So I agree with Nathan, and hope Masahiro will reconsider that perhaps
the v2 variant that required LLVM=1 maybe makes more sense.

Either way, I need to fix the comment in the new script, commit
message, and docs, so v4 is necessary.

I'm tempted to add a rewrite of our docs to say "just use LLVM=1"
front and center, then get into finer grain details below, moving this
second patch to be the third in a series.  Let's see what Masahiro's
thoughts are though first. (I do appreciate them, even when I
disagree).
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers