Re: [PATCH v2] x86: Remove libopcodes dependency

["H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 11:38 AM H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 1:22 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 29.11.2022 00:49, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 2:19 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> > >> On 22.11.2022 19:19, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > >>> --- a/gas/Makefile.am
> > >>> +++ b/gas/Makefile.am
> > >>> @@ -446,6 +446,12 @@ development.exp: $(BFDDIR)/development.sh
> > >>>       $(EGREP) "(development|experimental)=" $(BFDDIR)/development.sh  \
> > >>>         | $(AWK) -F= '{ print "set " $$1 " " $$2 }' > $@
> > >>>
> > >>> +$(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-init.h $(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-tbl.h: \
> > >>> +     @MAINT@ $(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-opc.tbl \
> > >>> +     $(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-reg.tbl \
> > >>> +     $(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-opc.h
> > >>> +     cd ../opcodes; make gen-i386-tbl
> > >>
> > >> I've made a patch to gas/Makefile.am as you have requested in reply to
> > >> my series. I will want to put that through some more testing, so I will
> > >> submit a v3 of that only a little later (and of course only unless you
> > >> submit a v2 of your patch earlier that I would also end up being okay
> > >> with). In the course of doing so I noticed a few more issues with your
> > >> change:
> > >>
> > >> For one I don't think you can put @MAINT@ on a continued line, as the
> > >> line continuation might then be hidden when @MAINT@ expands to #. The
> > >> list of dependencies wants expressing via a variable, which would then
> > >> be used immediately after @MAINT@ without any line continuation
> > >> following.
> > >
> > > Fixed.
> >
> > No, the same problem is still there. You either need to use a very long
> > line, or you need to introduce a variable holding the list of prereqs,
> > like I've done in my series.
>
> I got
>
> $(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-init.h $(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-tbl.h:
> $(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-opc.tbl \
>         $(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-reg.tbl \
>         $(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-opc.h \
>         $(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-gen.c
>         $(MAKE) -C ../opcodes gen-i386-tbl
>
> and
>
> $(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-init.h $(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-tbl.h: #
> $(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-opc.tbl \
>         $(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-reg.tbl \
>         $(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-opc.h \
>         $(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-gen.c
>         $(MAKE) -C ../opcodes gen-i386-tbl
>
> I didn't run into any problems.
>
> > >> And then your rule / dependency won't be enough on a "maintainer-clean"
> > >> tree, i.e. when the generated headers aren't there at all, and when
> > >> config/.deps/tc-i386.Po is still empty. In that case nothing would
> > >> trigger their generation; an explicit dependency of config/tc-i386.o on
> > >> these headers needs adding here.
> > >
> > > Fixed.
> > >
> > >> Finally you're missing a dependency of the generated headers on
> > >> i386-gen.c.
> > >
> > > They have a dependency on i386-gen which depends on i386-gen.c.
> >
> > In opcodes/, yes, but talk was about the rule in gas/. Yet despite
> > your comment above I see that you've added the missing dependency.
> >
> > > Here is the v2 patch.
> >
> > As said in reply to v1 - my objection to this particular use of make
> > recursion remains.
>
> The gen-i386-tbl rule doesn't touch any files used by libopcodes.

There are

bfd/Makefile.in:   ($(am__cd) $$subdir && $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS)
$$local_target) \
binutils/Makefile.in:   ($(am__cd) $$subdir && $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS)
$$local_target) \
gas/Makefile.in:   ($(am__cd) $$subdir && $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS)
$$local_target) \

> > I also continue to be irritated by you specifically having asked me
> > to further split my series, when you do everything in a single patch.
>
> My patch is relatively small and it does only one thing.
>
> > One further request at least for consideration: In my v3 I've moved
> > the inclusion of opcodes/i386-tbl.h quite a bit further down in
> > tc-i386.c, as I think it's preferable that way (not introducing the
> > static arrays earlier than necessary).
>
> Does it make any differences?
>
>
> --
> H.J.



-- 
H.J.