CTF patch for testing/review
jhb at freebsd.org
Mon Mar 22 21:08:05 UTC 2010
On Monday 22 March 2010 3:05:12 pm M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <20100322.125937.278730673160410010.imp at bsdimp.com>
> M. Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> writes:
> : In message: <20100322172104.14234yawbsev0sw8 at webmail.leidinger.net>
> : Alexander Leidinger <Alexander at Leidinger.net> writes:
> : : Normally we use MK_xxx for things which are opt-in/opt-out. What about
> : : using MK_xxx instead of ENABLE_CTF? If people are in favour of MK_xxx,
> : : what should the xxx part look like?
> : Normally we *TEST* MK_XXX for things which are opt-in/opt-out and
> : require the user to say WITH_XXX or WITHOUT_XXX if they don't like the
> : default (or want to ensure they get option XXX, even if we turn it off
> : by default in the future). The default then gets encoded in
> : bsd.own.mk, and permeates the FreeBSD build system since we include
> : that everywhere, directly or indirectly.
> : The problem is that bsd.own.mk is not included in sys.mk, nor should
> : it be. That's why we have the hacky combination of WITH_CTF and
> : NO_CTF that's there today.
> : : Is bsd.kern.mk included in module builds too?
> : Yes.
> One last thing I should have said was that the patch that was posted
> earlier in the thread looked ok, and likely couldn't be made
> significantly better due to the bsd.own.mk issue.
I think the patch is a good approach, I just think it needs to default to not
enabling CTF by default. Instead, various bsd.foo.mk should selectively
More information about the freebsd-arch