[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#30111] [PATCH] gnu: address@hidden: Use retpoline options when buil
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
[bug#30111] [PATCH] gnu: address@hidden: Use retpoline options when building itself. |
Date: |
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 10:37:10 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux) |
Hi Alex,
Sorry for the delay.
Alex Vong <address@hidden> skribis:
> This patch makes gcc use retpoline options when building itself. My last
> attempt to build it was successful. But after that I have changed
> something, I hope it wouldn't make it fail to build. (It shouldn't,
> since the options passed aren't changed.)
Any idea what upstream thinks of compiling GCC itself with these
options? Do they offer a configure flag or something to help with that?
> Are we going to add these options to other natively compiled programs as
> well?
I don’t have a good answer. Clearly we’ll want that in key packages,
but then where do we draw the line, and also how do we make sure we
don’t repeat ourselves?
Thoughts?
>>From f6b9caae6e13936be65550c871208a3425fe4ce4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Alex Vong <address@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 23:24:24 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: address@hidden: Use retpoline options when building
> itself.
>
> * gnu/packages/gcc.scm (address@hidden)[arguments]: Add retpoline options
> to #:make-flags.
[...]
> + (arguments
> + (substitute-keyword-arguments `(#:modules ((guix build gnu-build-system)
> + (guix build utils)
> + (ice-9 regex)
> + (srfi srfi-1)
> + (srfi srfi-26))
> + ,@(package-arguments gcc-6))
> + ;; Use retpoline options when building itself.
> + ((#:make-flags flags)
> + `(let* ((cross-compiling? ,(%current-target-system))
> + (system (if cross-compiling?
> + ,(%current-target-system)
> + ,(%current-system)))
> + (retpoline-opts '("-mindirect-branch=thunk"
> + "-mfunction-return=thunk"
> + "-mindirect-branch-register"))
> + (append-flag
> + (lambda (flag)
> + (if (string-match
> "^((BOOT_)?CFLAGS|C(XX)?FLAGS_FOR_TARGET)="
> + flag)
> + (string-join (cons flag retpoline-opts))
> + flag)))
> + (add-flag
> + (lambda (prefix flags)
> + (if (any (cut string-prefix? prefix <>) flags)
> + flags
> + (cons (string-append prefix
> + (string-join retpoline-opts))
> + flags))))
> + (add-gcc-flag (cut add-flag
> + (if cross-compiling? "CFLAGS="
> "BOOT_CFLAGS=")
> + <>))
> + (add-c-lib-flag (cut add-flag "CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET=" <>))
> + (add-c++-lib-flag (cut add-flag "CXXFLAGS_FOR_TARGET=" <>)))
> + ;; Right now, the retpoline options are x86-specific.
> + (if (any (cut string-prefix? <> system) '("x86_64" "i686"))
> + (add-gcc-flag (add-c-lib-flag (add-c++-lib-flag (map
> append-flag
> +
> ,flags))))
> + ,flags)))))
I’m a bit concerned by the apparent complexity and the extra maintenance
burden it may entail. I don’t have any concrete suggestions though. I
suppose we should somehow abstract GCC compilation to make it easier to
pass new flags?
Thanks,
Ludo’.
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- [bug#30111] [PATCH] gnu: address@hidden: Use retpoline options when building itself.,
Ludovic Courtès <=