lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 03/31] kconfig: reference environment variables directly and remove 'option env='
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote:
> Hi.
>
>
>
> 2018-05-21 0:46 GMT+09:00 Ulf Magnusson <ulfalizer@gmail.com>:
>
>> s/environments/environment variables/
>
> Will fix.
>
>
>>
>>> + * They will be written out to include/config/auto.conf.cmd
>>> + */
>>> + env_add(name, value);
>>> +
>>> + return xstrdup(value);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +void env_write_dep(FILE *f, const char *autoconfig_name)
>>> +{
>>> + struct env *e, *tmp;
>>> +
>>> + list_for_each_entry_safe(e, tmp, &env_list, node) {
>>> + fprintf(f, "ifneq \"$(%s)\" \"%s\"\n", e->name, e->value);
>>> + fprintf(f, "%s: FORCE\n", autoconfig_name);
>>> + fprintf(f, "endif\n");
>>> + env_del(e);
>>> + }
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static char *eval_clause(const char *in)
>>> +{
>>> + char *res, *name;
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * Returns an empty string because '$()' should be evaluated
>>> + * to a null string.
>>> + */
>>
>> Do you know of cases where this is more useful than erroring out?
>>
>> Not saying it doesn't make sense. Just curious.
>
>
> I just followed how Make works.
>
> Anyway, eval_clause() will return null string for null input.
> I will remove that hunk.
>
>
>
>
>>> + if (!*in)
>>> + return xstrdup("");
>>> +
>>> + name = expand_string(in);
>>> +
>>> + res = env_expand(name);
>>> + free(name);
>>> +
>>> + return res;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +/*
>>> + * Expand a string that follows '$'
>>> + *
>>> + * For example, if the input string is
>>> + * ($(FOO)$($(BAR)))$(BAZ)
>>> + * this helper evaluates
>>> + * $($(FOO)$($(BAR)))
>>> + * and returns the resulted string, then updates 'str' to point to the next
>>
>> s/resulted/resulting/
>>
>> Maybe something like this would make the behavior a bit clearer:
>>
>> ...and returns a new string containing the expansion, also advancing
>> 'str' to point to the next character after... (note that this function does
>> a recursive expansion) ...
>
>
> Is this OK?
>
> /*
> * Expand a string that follows '$'
> *
> * For example, if the input string is
> * ($(FOO)$($(BAR)))$(BAZ)
> * this helper evaluates
> * $($(FOO)$($(BAR)))
> * and returns a new string containing the expansion (note that the string is
> * recursively expanded), also advancing 'str' to point to the next character
> * after the corresponding closing parenthesis, in this case, *str will be
> * $(BAR)
> */

Looks fine to me.

>
>
>
>>> + * character after the corresponding closing parenthesis, in this case, *str
>>> + * will be
>>> + * $(BAR)
>>> + */
>>> +char *expand_dollar(const char **str)
>>> +{
>>> + const char *p = *str;
>>> + const char *q;
>>> + char *tmp, *out;
>>> + int nest = 0;
>>> +
>>> + /* '$$' represents an escaped '$' */
>>> + if (*p == '$') {
>>> + *str = p + 1;
>>> + return xstrdup("$");
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * Kconfig does not support single-letter variable as in $A
>>> + * or curly braces as in ${CC}.
>>> + */
>>> + if (*p != '(')
>>> + pperror("syntax error: '$' not followed by '('", p);
>>
>> Could say "not followed by '(' by or '$'".
>
> Will do.
>
>
>>> +
>>> + p++;
>>> + q = p;
>>> + while (*q) {
>>> + if (*q == '(') {
>>> + nest++;
>>> + } else if (*q == ')') {
>>> + if (nest-- == 0)
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>> + q++;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (!*q)
>>> + pperror("unterminated reference to '%s': missing ')'", p);
>>> +
>>> + tmp = xmalloc(q - p + 1);
>>> + memcpy(tmp, p, q - p);
>>> + tmp[q - p] = 0;
>>> + *str = q + 1;
>>> + out = eval_clause(tmp);
>>> + free(tmp);
>>> +
>>> + return out;
>>
>> This might be a bit clearer, since the 'str' update and the expansion
>> are independent:
>
> Indeed, will do.
>
>>
>> /* Advance 'str' to after the expanded initial portion of the string */
>> *str = q + 1;
>>
>> /* Save the "FOO" part of "(FOO)" into 'tmp' and expand it recursively */
>> tmp = xmalloc(q - p + 1);
>> memcpy(tmp, p, q - p);
>> tmp[q - p] = '\0';
>> out = eval_clause(tmp);
>> free(tmp);
>>
>> return out;
>>
>> ...or switched around, but thought putting the 'str' bit first might
>> emphasize that it isn't modified.
>
>
> I prefer advancing the pointer at last.

Yeah, it's a bit less weird in a way...

>
>
>
>
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +/*
>>> + * Expand variables in the given string. Undefined variables
>>> + * expand to an empty string.
>>
>> I wonder what the tradeoffs are vs. erroring out here (or leaving
>> undefined variables as-is).
>
>
> I want to stick to the Make-like behavior here and exploit it in some cases.
> We can set some variables in some arch/*/Kconfig,
> but unset in the others.
>
>
>
>
> In some arch/*/Kconfig:
>
> min-gcc-version := 40900
>
>
>
>
> In init/Kconfig:
>
> # GCC 4.5 is required to build Linux Kernel.
> # Some architectures may override it (from arch/*/Kconfig) for their
> requirement.
> min-gcc-version := $(if,$(min-gcc-version),$(min-gcc-version),40500)
>
> ... check the gcc version, then show error
> if it is older than $(min-gcc-version).

OK, makes sense. Fine by me.

>>> + * The returned string must be freed when done.
>>> + */
>>> +char *expand_string(const char *in)
>>> +{
>>> + const char *prev_in, *p;
>>> + char *new, *out;
>>> + size_t outlen;
>>> +
>>> + out = xmalloc(1);
>>> + *out = 0;
>>> +
>>> + while ((p = strchr(in, '$'))) {
>>> + prev_in = in;
>>> + in = p + 1;
>>> + new = expand_dollar(&in);
>>> + outlen = strlen(out) + (p - prev_in) + strlen(new) + 1;
>>> + out = xrealloc(out, outlen);
>>> + strncat(out, prev_in, p - prev_in);
>>> + strcat(out, new);
>>> + free(new);
>>
>> Some code duplication with expand_one_token() here. Do you think
>> something could be factored out/reorganized?
>
>
> Yes. For example, the following would work.
> If you prefer that, I can update it in v5.
>
>
>
>
> static char *__expand_string(const char **str, bool (*is_end)(const char *))
> {
> const char *in, *prev_in, *p;
> char *new, *out;
> size_t outlen;
>
> out = xmalloc(1);
> *out = 0;
>
> p = in = *str;
>
> while (1) {
> if (*p == '$') {
> prev_in = in;
> in = p + 1;
> new = expand_dollar(&in);
> outlen = strlen(out) + (p - prev_in) + strlen(new) + 1;
> out = xrealloc(out, outlen);
> strncat(out, prev_in, p - prev_in);
> strcat(out, new);
> free(new);
> p = in;
> continue;
> }
>
> if (is_end(p))
> break;
>
> p++;
> }
>
> outlen = strlen(out) + (p - in) + 1;
> out = xrealloc(out, outlen);
> strncat(out, in, p - in);
>
> *str = p;
>
> return out;
> }
>
> static bool is_end_of_str(const char *s)
> {
> return !*s;
> }
>
> char *expand_string(const char *in)
> {
> return __expand_string(&in, is_end_of_str);
> }
>
> static bool is_end_of_token(const char *s)
> {
> return !(isalnum(*s) || *s == '_' || *s == '-' || *s == '.' ||
> *s == '/');
> }
>
> char *expand_one_token(const char **str)
> {
> return __expand_string(str, is_end_of_token);
> }

Yep, something like that would be nicer I think.

This variant might work too (untested):

dollar_i = p;
p++;
expansion = expand_dollar(&p);

out = xrealloc(out, strlen(out) + (dollar_i - in)
+ strlen(expansion) + 1);
strncat(out, in, dollar_i - in);
strcat(out, expansion);
free(expansion);

in = p;

continue;

The p++ would disappear if expand_dollar() took a pointer to the '$'.

Having some string buffer helpers might be nice, but definitely out of scope.

>
>
>
>
>
>> I wonder if it might be cleaner to have expand_dollar() take a pointer
>> to the '$'. Might even out in terms of the +1's you'd have to add, as
>> all callers manually bump the pointer before the call now. I haven't
>> tried implementing it though, so hard to say.
>
>
> If I do this, I'd want to add a sanity check to expand_dollar().
> I'd rather like to avoid unneeded code.
>
>
> static char *expand_dollar(...)
> {
> assert(*p == '$');
> p++;
>
> /* '$$' represents an escaped '$' */
> if (*p == '$') {
> *str = p + 1;
> return xstrdup("$");
> }
>
> ...
>
>
> }

Felt a bit more direct to have it point to the start of the thing
being expanded, and the assert() doesn't seem horrible there to me,
but your call.

>
>
>>
>> Some short inline comments similar to above would help too I think.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards
> Masahiro Yamada

Cheers,
Ulf

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-21 13:08    [W:0.145 / U:1.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site