Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Tue, 8 Mar 2022 16:36:17 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Cc:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kbuild: Make $(LLVM) more flexible
Message-ID: <YieGARVP2dhn8tbQ@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20220304170813.1689186-1-nathan@kernel.org>
 <CAKwvOd=Q-7vPaRPj1wQagFsY3txcAKzrqU_D2UAX3h4ym91uUA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKwvOd=Q-7vPaRPj1wQagFsY3txcAKzrqU_D2UAX3h4ym91uUA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 11:08:29AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > +``LLVM=0`` is not the same as omitting ``LLVM`` altogether, it will behave like
> > +``LLVM=1``.
> 
> Hmm... I can see someone's build wrappers setting LLVM=1, then them
> being surprised that appending LLVM=0 doesn't disable LLVM=1 as they
> might expect.  But Masahiro says let's fix this later which is fine.

What happens if you say LLVM= instead of LLVM=0 ?  Would that "undo"
a prior LLVM=1 and use GCC instead?