Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] x86: break gas dependency on libopcodes

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

On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 8:52 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 21.11.2022 17:43, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 8:32 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 21.11.2022 17:26, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 1:13 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> gas doesn't use anything from libopcodes anymore - suppress linking in
> >>>> that library.
> >>>> ---
> >>>> v2: New, split off from larger earlier patch.
> >>>>
> >>>> --- a/gas/configure
> >>>> +++ b/gas/configure
> >>>> @@ -12263,7 +12263,7 @@ _ACEOF
> >>>>
> >>>>      # Do we need the opcodes library?
> >>>>      case ${cpu_type} in
> >>>> -      vax | tic30)
> >>>> +      vax | tic30 | i386)
> >>>>         ;;
> >>>>
> >>>>        *)
> >>>> --- a/gas/configure.ac
> >>>> +++ b/gas/configure.ac
> >>>> @@ -420,7 +420,7 @@ changequote([,])dnl
> >>>>
> >>>>      # Do we need the opcodes library?
> >>>>      case ${cpu_type} in
> >>>> -      vax | tic30)
> >>>> +      vax | tic30 | i386)
> >>>>         ;;
> >>>>
> >>>>        *)
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> We need to add some dependencies on i386-opc.tbl and i386-reg.tbl for
> >>> --enable-maintainer-mode to check if i386-tbl.h and i386-init.h are up to
> >>> date.  It doesn't need to regenerate i386-tbl.h.  An error message should be
> >>> sufficient.
> >>
> >> This isn't needed here, but in patch 2, where I'm already adjusting
> >> existing dependencies. Since I'm not modifying any toplevel files, the
> >> building of opcodes/ still ought to be happening before the building of
> >> gas/, so I don't see why any further changes should be necessary. Please
> >> clarify if you see any such reason.
> >>
> >
> > Since gas no longer depends on libopcodes, one may change i386-opc.tbl and
> > run "make" in gas.
>
> Is running make in gas/ a supported operation?
>
> >   It is more reliable than the fake dependency in opcodes.
>
> If the answer to the above is yes, then I may agree here. Except that then
> I don't see how this dependency is being enforced prior to this series.
> IOW - aren't you asking to address an unrelated issue?
>

It didn't work before.  Now we have a chance.

-- 
H.J.