Hi Peff,

On Thu, 8 Oct 2020, Jeff King wrote:

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

quoted

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.

Fair enough. It's easy to exclude `.*_CFLAGS` via a negative look-behind:

	$key = '';
	@to_sort = ();
	while (<>) {
		if ($#to_sort >= 0) {
			if (/^$key \+=/) {
				push @to_sort, $_;
				next;
			}
			print join('', sort @to_sort);
			@to_sort = ();
		}
		if (/^(\S+(?<!_CFLAGS)) \+=/) {
			$key = $1;
			push @to_sort, $_;
		} else {
			print $_;
		}
	}

	if ($#to_sort >= 0) {
		print join('', sort @to_sort);
	}

Ciao,
Dscho