Re: [PATCH] Makefile: ASCII-sort += lists

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Oct 8, 2020, 16:08 UTC
Message-ID: <20201008160816.GC2823778@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2010081156350.50@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>

On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 12:06:47PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> My little script also finds this:
> 
> -- snip --
> @@ -1231,8 +1231,8 @@ space := $(empty) $(empty)
> 
>  ifdef SANITIZE
>  SANITIZERS := $(foreach flag,$(subst $(comma),$(space),$(SANITIZE)),$(flag))
> -BASIC_CFLAGS += -fsanitize=$(SANITIZE) -fno-sanitize-recover=$(SANITIZE)
>  BASIC_CFLAGS += -fno-omit-frame-pointer
> +BASIC_CFLAGS += -fsanitize=$(SANITIZE) -fno-sanitize-recover=$(SANITIZE)
>  ifneq ($(filter undefined,$(SANITIZERS)),)
>  BASIC_CFLAGS += -DSHA1DC_FORCE_ALIGNED_ACCESS
>  endif
> -- snap --
> 
> I am not _so_ sure that we want to order `BASIC_CFLAGS`, but then, it does
> not hurt, does it?

I agree it would not be wrong to reorder here from the compiler's perspective, but:

  - the current ordering is not arbitrary; the intent was to show that
    we are enabling -fsanitize, and then follow it up with any other
    related options (first any that apply to all sanitizers, of which
    there is only one, and then any sanitizer-specific ones). The patch
    above splits that logic apart.

  - I'd worry that there are cases in which order _does_ matter to the
    compiler. I'm not sure if anything that goes in CFLAGS might
    qualify, but certainly order can matter for other parts of the
    command-line (e.g., static library order).

    So it might be setting us up for confusion later.

-Peff