CTF patch for testing/review

[John Baldwin]

On Tuesday 23 March 2010 6:12:43 am Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Quoting "M. Warner Losh" <imp at bsdimp.com> (from Mon, 22 Mar 2010  
> 20:35:53 -0600 (MDT)):
> 
> > In message: <201003221605.24538.jhb at freebsd.org>
> >             John Baldwin <jhb at FreeBSD.org> writes:
> > : 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
> > : enable it.
> >
> > I should have added that bit as well...
> 
> And here it is:
>    http://www.leidinger.net/test/ctf2.diff
> 
> Please pay attention to one XXX comment. Both cases I describe look  
> possible, but I would like to get some more eyes on this issues to not  
> overlook something.

I would maybe put a comment in front of the CFLAGS+= line for now and leave 
the rest of the XXX comment.  I'm not sure of the best way to solve this yet.

> I haven't renamed the NO_CTF part yet. Bikeshed: ENABLE_CTF / ADD_CTF  
> / MK_CTF / MK_CTFINFO / MK_CTFINC / ...? Cast your vote please.

I think the naming stuff you have used is fine.  I think it is better to use 
NO_CTF rather than MK_CTF because this is not set via bsd.own.mk but is a 
special case.

-- 
John Baldwin