On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 11:18:07AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 8:37 AM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 01:16:04PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > As per our previous discussion
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kbuild/CAKwvOd=x9E=7WcCiieso-CDiiU-wMFcXL4W3V5j8dq7BL5QT+w@mail.gmail.com/
> > > I'm still of the opionion that this should be solved by modifications
> > > (permanent or one off) to one's $PATH.
> >
> > However, I think we could still address Peter's complaint of "there
> > should be an easier way for me to use the tools that are already in my
> > PATH" with his first iteration of this patch [1], which I feel is
> > totally reasonable:
> >
> > $ make LLVM=-14
> >
> > It is still easy to use (in fact, it is shorter than 'CC=clang-14') and
> > it does not change anything else about how we build with LLVM. We would
> > just have to add something along the lines of
> >
> > "If your LLVM tools have a suffix like Debian's (clang-14, ld.lld-14,
> > etc.), use LLVM=<suffix>.
> 
> "If your LLVM tools have a suffix and you prefer to test an explicit
> version rather than the unsuffixed executables ..."

Ack, I included this.

> > $ make LLVM=-14"
> >
> > to Documentation/kbuild/llvm.rst.
> >
> > I might change the patch not to be so clever though:
> >
> > ifneq ($(LLVM),)
> > ifneq ($(LLVM),1)
> > LLVM_SFX := $(LLVM)
> > endif
> > endif
> >
> > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/r/YXqpFHeY26sEbort@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/
> 
> I'd be much more amenable to that approach.

Sounds good, tentative patch attached, it passes all of my testing.
There is an instance of $(LLVM) in tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk that I
did not touch, as that will presumably have to go through the selftests
tree. I can send a separate patch for that later.

Peter, is this approach okay with you? If so, would you like to be
co-author or should I use a suggested-by tag?

Cheers,
Nathan