Re: [PATCH v2] x86: Remove libopcodes dependency

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

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 11:31 PM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 29.11.2022 20:38, H.J. Lu 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:
>
> Note the missing line continuation here.

They are on the same line:

$(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-init.h $(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-tbl.h:
$(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-opc.tbl \

or

$(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-init.h $(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-tbl.h: #
$(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-opc.tbl \

> > $(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 have no idea what make makes of this standalone list of filenames.
> Without the line continuation these wouldn't be dependencies of the
> two named generated files.
>
> > 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
>
> Again these aren't dependencies of the two named generated files.
>
> > I didn't run into any problems.
>
> I'm surprised.
>
> >> 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?
>
> It is simply more logical to introduce definitions (not just
> declarations) not among the ordinary set of #include-s. And it keeps
> related things closer together.
>

I prefer keeping "#include" together.



-- 
H.J.