From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4566 invoked by alias); 21 May 2019 21:37:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 4558 invoked by uid 89); 21 May 2019 21:37:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=extensive, organized, consequence, tissue X-HELO: esa3.hgst.iphmx.com Received: from esa3.hgst.iphmx.com (HELO esa3.hgst.iphmx.com) (216.71.153.141) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 May 2019 21:37:00 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=wdc.com; i=@wdc.com; q=dns/txt; s=dkim.wdc.com; t=1558474621; x=1590010621; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=i6IY83p5+nfyyAGykImxKOvUQ8ueEHrmMiy+K1oar2o=; b=GCJniGftN8B5DNbMCoAlWgmOs4dTaMibXqfyIjmLQGll3ILom2siFLde Vy8ktcdtkj8OCpUw1AFGsOWT+CeNRiBUOepj+lyIlaU5kJWZyxiR8ahcE bbIZKzVmHOTCSrp/dhHKtnxAyFwWJB5diLt1XOlG/TbgI9vZEkK2faR3Z 7XW1Bnwlqnl2BQ/qZ+3P7YyU5GPwTytu6cLvwGYCdVoachdT3EkZgLB/n RkHbVnhFFvgYi1exZ0KA0VCVf1XfxUKUPlhHTbLqS5CHu4ythGLpVzZMs rFmQiTF8+P9nW9V4URW3vK5uYBg7RdSOH23IQ8I5TxjDuPSXi+lAjzlGO Q==; Received: from mail-co1nam05lp2051.outbound.protection.outlook.com (HELO NAM05-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) ([104.47.48.51]) by ob1.hgst.iphmx.com with ESMTP; 22 May 2019 05:36:57 +0800 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sharedspace.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-sharedspace-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=2ztWUrJgVWHpDKfDBeQbhBXwIhqJLqew13ouFBhQvsg=; b=TNX1dGCqHozUtxmuCMij5QtmLoEu951j07l/+zx5unEP+//p/NH/7iBCv7tDNc97DWLhytPD/4gFqhJ0C0n2e46zQTMWks6PITl8MGAuxl7lrWsdF+tMlIHL3AUA4iYf7vI1rCKHFZljGcIwbF4AJ5dv9bF5fr89MoaDKKEG690= Received: from BYAPR04MB4502.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (52.135.238.11) by BYAPR04MB5302.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (20.178.49.147) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1900.17; Tue, 21 May 2019 21:36:55 +0000 Received: from BYAPR04MB4502.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e15b:4e75:ab6c:8e1a]) by BYAPR04MB4502.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e15b:4e75:ab6c:8e1a%6]) with mapi id 15.20.1900.020; Tue, 21 May 2019 21:36:55 +0000 From: Maciej Rozycki To: Jacob Bachmeyer CC: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , "dejagnu@gnu.org" , Pierre-Marie de Rodat , Arnaud Charlet , Eric Botcazou Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3][DejaGNU] target: Wrap linker flags into `-largs'/`-margs' for Ada Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 21:37:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <5CDCA82D.8090204@gmail.com> <5CDDF492.5010308@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5CDDF492.5010308@gmail.com> authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=macro@wdc.com; wdcipoutbound: EOP-TRUE x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000; x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-SW-Source: 2019-05/txt/msg01442.txt.bz2 On Thu, 16 May 2019, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote: > > I suspect the origins may be different, however as valuable as your=20 > > observation is functional problems have precedence over issues with cod= e=20 > > structuring, so we need to fix the problem at hand first. I'm sure=20 > > DejaGNU maintainers will be happy to review your implementation of code= =20 > > restructuring afterwards. >=20 > My concern is that your patch may only solve a small part of the problem= =20 > -- enough to make your specific case work, yes, but then someone else=20 > will hit other parts of the problem later and we spiral towards "tissue=20 > of hacks" unmaintainability. I think however that fixing problems in small steps as they are=20 discovered is also a reasonable approach and a way to move forward:=20 perfect is the enemy of good. So I don't think the prospect of making a comprehensive solution should=20 prevent a simple fix for the problem at hand that has been already=20 developed from being applied. IOW I don't discourage you from developing a comprehensive solution,=20 however applying my proposal right away will help at least some people and= =20 will not block you in any way. > The biggest hint to me that your patch is incomplete is that it only=20 > adds -largs/-margs to wrap LDFLAGS. I suspect that there are other=20 > -?args options that should be used also with other flag sets, but those=20 > do not appear in this patch. Do we know what the GNU Ada frontend=20 > actually expects? At first glance it looks to me we should be safe overall as compiler=20 flags are supposed to be passed through by `gnatmake' (barring switch=20 processing bugs, as observed with 1/3), and IIUC assembler flags are=20 considered compiler flags for the purpose of this consideration as=20 `gnatmake' does not make assembly a separate build stage. So while we=20 could wrap compiler flags into `-cargs'/`-margs', it would only serve to=20 avoid possible `gnatmake' switch processing bugs. There's also `-bargs' for binder switches, but I can't see any use for it= =20 here. Finally boards are offered the choice of `adaflags', `cflags',=20 `cxxflags', etc. for the individual languages, where the correct syntax=20 can be used if anything unusual is needed beyond what I have noted above. I'll defer any further consideration to the Ada maintainers cc-ed; I do=20 hope I haven't missed anything here, but then Ada is far from being my=20 primary area of experience. > > The ordering rules are system-specific I'm afraid and we have to be=20 > > careful not to break working systems out there. People may be forced t= o a=20 > > DejaGNU upgrate, due to a newer version of a program being tested havin= g=20 > > such a requirement, and can legitimately expect their system to continu= e=20 > > working. >=20 > We can start by simply preserving the existing ordering until we know=20 > something should change, but the main goal of my previous message was to= =20 > collect the requirements for a specification for default_target_compile=20 > so I can write regression tests (some of which will fail due to known=20 > bugs like broken Ada support in our current implementation) before=20 > embarking on extensive changes to that procedure. Improving=20 > "target.test" was already on my local TODO list. You are welcome to go ahead with your effort as far as I am concerned. > Unfortunately, people with that particular attitude seem to have=20 > acquired outsize influence over the last few years. I would suspect an=20 > organized attack if I were more conspiracy-oriented, but Hanlon's razor=20 > strongly suggests that this is simply a consequence of lowering barriers= =20 > to entry. Nod. Maciej