I guess it's easier to remember that %.E does "$(CC) -E" or "$(CPP)".

Suggested-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Signed-off-by: Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@citrix.com>
---
 xen/Makefile | 4 ++--
 xen/Rules.mk | 5 +++++
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/xen/Makefile b/xen/Makefile
index 995815e82235..e39a6f82859a 100644
--- a/xen/Makefile
+++ b/xen/Makefile
@@ -609,10 +609,10 @@ cscope:
 _MAP:
 	$(NM) -n $(TARGET)-syms | grep -v '\(compiled\)\|\(\.o$$\)\|\( [aUw] \)\|\(\.\.ng$$\)\|\(LASH[RL]DI\)' > System.map
 
-%.o %.i %.s: %.c tools_fixdep FORCE
+%.o %.i %.s %.E: %.c tools_fixdep FORCE
 	$(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=$(*D) $(*D)/$(@F)
 
-%.o %.s: %.S tools_fixdep FORCE
+%.o %.s %.E: %.S tools_fixdep FORCE
 	$(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=$(*D) $(*D)/$(@F)
 
 %/: tools_fixdep FORCE
diff --git a/xen/Rules.mk b/xen/Rules.mk
index 73d5b82ab2e7..745d892d0707 100644
--- a/xen/Rules.mk
+++ b/xen/Rules.mk
@@ -287,6 +287,11 @@ $(obj)/%.s: $(src)/%.c FORCE
 $(obj)/%.s: $(src)/%.S FORCE
 	$(call if_changed_dep,cpp_s_S)
 
+$(obj)/%.E: $(src)/%.c FORCE
+	$(call if_changed_dep,cpp_i_c)
+$(obj)/%.E: $(src)/%.S FORCE
+	$(call if_changed_dep,cpp_s_S)
+
 # Linker scripts, .lds.S -> .lds
 quiet_cmd_cpp_lds_S = LDS     $@
 cmd_cpp_lds_S = $(CPP) -P $(call cpp_flags,$(a_flags)) -DLINKER_SCRIPT -MQ $@ -o $@ $<
-- 
Anthony PERARD

On 25/11/2021 13:39, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> I guess it's easier to remember that %.E does "$(CC) -E" or "$(CPP)".
>
> Suggested-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
> Signed-off-by: Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@citrix.com>
> ---
>  xen/Makefile | 4 ++--
>  xen/Rules.mk | 5 +++++
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/xen/Makefile b/xen/Makefile
> index 995815e82235..e39a6f82859a 100644
> --- a/xen/Makefile
> +++ b/xen/Makefile
> @@ -609,10 +609,10 @@ cscope:
>  _MAP:
>  	$(NM) -n $(TARGET)-syms | grep -v '\(compiled\)\|\(\.o$$\)\|\( [aUw] \)\|\(\.\.ng$$\)\|\(LASH[RL]DI\)' > System.map
>  
> -%.o %.i %.s: %.c tools_fixdep FORCE
> +%.o %.i %.s %.E: %.c tools_fixdep FORCE
>  	$(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=$(*D) $(*D)/$(@F)

So what I hadn't realised when asking was that Linux calls this .i and
we've already got support for what I wanted.  Sorry :)

Thus, I suspect we probably don't want to take an extra %.E alias to the
existing %.i, although...

>  
> -%.o %.s: %.S tools_fixdep FORCE
> +%.o %.s %.E: %.S tools_fixdep FORCE
>  	$(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=$(*D) $(*D)/$(@F)
>  
>  %/: tools_fixdep FORCE
> diff --git a/xen/Rules.mk b/xen/Rules.mk
> index 73d5b82ab2e7..745d892d0707 100644
> --- a/xen/Rules.mk
> +++ b/xen/Rules.mk
> @@ -287,6 +287,11 @@ $(obj)/%.s: $(src)/%.c FORCE
>  $(obj)/%.s: $(src)/%.S FORCE
>  	$(call if_changed_dep,cpp_s_S)
>  
> +$(obj)/%.E: $(src)/%.c FORCE
> +	$(call if_changed_dep,cpp_i_c)
> +$(obj)/%.E: $(src)/%.S FORCE
> +	$(call if_changed_dep,cpp_s_S)

... I don't currently see support for %.i from %.S in the tree.  That
one probably would be useful to introduce.

~Andrew

> +
>  # Linker scripts, .lds.S -> .lds
>  quiet_cmd_cpp_lds_S = LDS     $@
>  cmd_cpp_lds_S = $(CPP) -P $(call cpp_flags,$(a_flags)) -DLINKER_SCRIPT -MQ $@ -o $@ $<

On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 11:18:08AM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 25/11/2021 13:39, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > I guess it's easier to remember that %.E does "$(CC) -E" or "$(CPP)".
> >
> > -%.o %.i %.s: %.c tools_fixdep FORCE
> > +%.o %.i %.s %.E: %.c tools_fixdep FORCE
> >  	$(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=$(*D) $(*D)/$(@F)
> 
> So what I hadn't realised when asking was that Linux calls this .i and
> we've already got support for what I wanted.  Sorry :)
> 
> Thus, I suspect we probably don't want to take an extra %.E alias to the
> existing %.i, although...
> 
> >  
> > -%.o %.s: %.S tools_fixdep FORCE
> > +%.o %.s %.E: %.S tools_fixdep FORCE

> > +$(obj)/%.E: $(src)/%.c FORCE
> > +	$(call if_changed_dep,cpp_i_c)
> > +$(obj)/%.E: $(src)/%.S FORCE
> > +	$(call if_changed_dep,cpp_s_S)
> 
> ... I don't currently see support for %.i from %.S in the tree.  That
> one probably would be useful to introduce.

It's %.s for %.S, easy ;-)

Yep, %.s may run `gcc -S` or `gcc -E`.
And %.i may run `gcc -E` or may not run at all.

It seems that Linux have the same rules.

So, I guess to run gcc -E, one have to run `make dir/target.i || make
dir/target.s` currently, :-).

Another thing, %.s:%.S was broken for a while, and no one complained.

Cheers,

-- 
Anthony PERARD

On 25.11.2021 14:39, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> I guess it's easier to remember that %.E does "$(CC) -E" or "$(CPP)".
> 
> Suggested-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
> Signed-off-by: Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@citrix.com>

I understand that this patch isn't going to be needed anymore.

Jan