Re: [PATCH] libsanitizer: Check assembler support for symbol assignment [PR112563]

[Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>]

Hi Jakub,

>> 2023-11-23  Rainer Orth  <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
>> 
>> 	libsanitizer:
>> 	PR libsanitizer/112563
>> 	* configure.ac (libsanitizer_cv_as_sym_assign): Check for
>> 	assembler symbol assignment support.
>> 	* configure, config.h.in: Regenerate.
>> 	* sanitizer_common/sanitizer_redefine_builtins.h: Include config.h.
>> 	Check HAVE_AS_SYM_ASSIGN.
>
> Can you please
> 1) split it into 2 patches, one touching config* which is owned by GCC (and
>    Makefiles, see later), one just sanitizer_common/sanitizer_redefine_builtins.h
> 2) avoid using config.h in, instead use AC_SUBST and add @HAVE_AS_SYM_ASSIGN@
>    to Makefile.am's DEFS where needed (either expanding to nothing or
>    -DHAVE_AS_SYM_ASSIGN=1)?  The reason is to minimize changes to imported
>    sources
>
> Once the sanitizer_common/sanitizer_redefine_builtins.h change (just
> the && defined(HAVE_AS_SYM_ASSIGN) addition) patch is committed and pushed
> upstream, add its commit has LOCAL_PATCHES.

But will they accept a patch to check a macro never set anywhere in and
irrelevant to LLVM?  That's why I kept all in one patch, to be GCC-local.

If we go (or at least try) this upstream route, should I wait for
approval there and than commit both parts to GCC, keeping it in my local
tree until then?

> Note, your ChangeLog entry was pretending config.h include has been added
> to one header, but it went to a different one instead.

Drats, that's what you get for starting one way and adjusting later ;-)

	Rainer

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University