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

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>]

On 21.11.2022 18:04, H.J. Lu wrote:
> 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.

But then please in a separate change, on top of this series. I'm willing
to make such a patch (whether that then finds your approval is a separate
question), but I'd please like to see things unblocked here.

Jan