From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FFAAC43331 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 17:11:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B483206F6 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 17:11:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=citrix.com header.i=@citrix.com header.b="AShKUq21" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0B483206F6 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=citrix.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1jGn5F-0007bu-Dr; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 17:11:21 +0000 Received: from all-amaz-eas1.inumbo.com ([34.197.232.57] helo=us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1jGn5D-0007bp-Vf for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 17:11:20 +0000 X-Inumbo-ID: 79e57052-6df2-11ea-8483-12813bfff9fa Received: from esa6.hc3370-68.iphmx.com (unknown [216.71.155.175]) by us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id 79e57052-6df2-11ea-8483-12813bfff9fa; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 17:11:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=citrix.com; s=securemail; t=1585069878; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=KeFRMcQaGZHKlODr9xUaxcB6A1NZ6/Gkgrn252nUthc=; b=AShKUq21xvPQZdmo1P0Vdl9SXkTzg6k1nxjc5r7T/ZB8qWJLojEV9hGw /MKRraWcFZVN5B98cA3u0tBGhMig4P6dmlKw8E1xdOQqsl0N9po3kTCXH V6o8dAGNbm46yzufPFQPuJeHDXoUfCCOoHHHRSS58HNxaFWGfZV/gipgl I=; Authentication-Results: esa6.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none; spf=None smtp.pra=anthony.perard@citrix.com; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=anthony.perard@citrix.com; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@mail.citrix.com Received-SPF: None (esa6.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender authenticity information available from domain of anthony.perard@citrix.com) identity=pra; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa6.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="anthony.perard@citrix.com"; x-sender="anthony.perard@citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (esa6.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: domain of anthony.perard@citrix.com designates 162.221.158.21 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa6.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="anthony.perard@citrix.com"; x-sender="anthony.perard@citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"; x-record-text="v=spf1 ip4:209.167.231.154 ip4:178.63.86.133 ip4:195.66.111.40/30 ip4:85.115.9.32/28 ip4:199.102.83.4 ip4:192.28.146.160 ip4:192.28.146.107 ip4:216.52.6.88 ip4:216.52.6.188 ip4:162.221.158.21 ip4:162.221.156.83 ip4:168.245.78.127 ~all" Received-SPF: None (esa6.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail.citrix.com) identity=helo; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa6.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="anthony.perard@citrix.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail.citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible IronPort-SDR: dNnK9/aZRJiMm4oMzKtIfKpz9R5lZv8kdgtuqrqn8MpMynm+I+6yQtvfwjadE5euX39jBBmGmu +VVXaYsHHr7k3UIOUs35I1u1b1jrC+ypUMYEYpXJ7/QZ0lSyUtxmeQn1NJeyyoQ5WT+/HIy0Ul agA9qnuDLtmYKsSGaOhoR96yrON8KP3oCnfc1A294OrSy8qFJeSS570fRWVodHuVtUXVFBDOO/ fLE16LXvZ6RqbwAo5VBeC5P3X0J4gUtMpzBxvsY9DBG4E1RUAyBZEGiRbZy82OyJ87pWL7EaxG hpk= X-SBRS: 2.7 X-MesageID: 14966104 X-Ironport-Server: esa6.hc3370-68.iphmx.com X-Remote-IP: 162.221.158.21 X-Policy: $RELAYED X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.72,301,1580792400"; d="scan'208";a="14966104" Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 17:11:11 +0000 From: Anthony PERARD To: Roger Pau =?iso-8859-1?Q?Monn=E9?= Message-ID: <20200324171038.GO4088@perard.uk.xensource.com> References: <20200226113355.2532224-1-anthony.perard@citrix.com> <20200226113355.2532224-16-anthony.perard@citrix.com> <20200227110504.GN24458@Air-de-Roger.citrite.net> <20200317180524.GA4088@perard.uk.xensource.com> <20200319162412.GH4088@perard.uk.xensource.com> <20200323151153.GD24458@Air-de-Roger.citrite.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20200323151153.GD24458@Air-de-Roger.citrite.net> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [XEN PATCH v3 15/23] xen/build: have the root Makefile generates the CFLAGS X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Stefano Stabellini , Julien Grall , Wei Liu , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , George Dunlap , Andrew Cooper , Ian Jackson , Jan Beulich , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Daniel De Graaf , Volodymyr Babchuk Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Sender: "Xen-devel" On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 04:11:53PM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 04:24:12PM +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote: > > So, testing for the -Wa,--strip-local-absolute flags turns out to be > > more complicated than I though it would be. > > - cc-option-add doesn't work because it doesn't test with the current list > > of CFLAGS. And if I add the CFLAGS, clang says the option is unused, > > it doesn't matter if -no-integrated-as is present or not. > > Oh, that seems like completely bogus clang behavior. It's my > understanding (from reading the manual) that whatever gets appended to > -Wa, is just passed to the assembler, in which case the compiler > has no idea whether it's used by it or not. > > Which version of clang did you use to test it? Probably 9.0.1, I don't think I've upgraded since my tests. -- Anthony PERARD