The 'imply' statement may create unmet direct dependency when the implied symbol depends on m. [Test Code] config FOO tristate "foo" imply BAZ config BAZ tristate "baz" depends on BAR config BAR def_tristate m config MODULES def_bool y option modules If you set FOO=y, BAZ is also promoted to y, which results in the following .config file: CONFIG_FOO=y CONFIG_BAZ=y CONFIG_BAR=m CONFIG_MODULES=y This does not meet the dependency 'BAZ depends on BAR'. Unlike 'select', what is worse, Kconfig never shows the 'WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for ...' for this case. Because 'imply' is considered to be weaker than 'depends on', Kconfig should take the direct dependency into account. For clarification, describe this case in kconfig-language.rst too.
Showing the changes to scripts (1 of 2 files). Show all
Unified · Split
| @@ -221,7 +221,7 @@ static void sym_calc_visibility(struct symbol *sym) · 220 unmodified lines | ||
| 221 | 221 | sym_set_changed(sym); |
| 222 | 222 | } |
| 223 | 223 | tri = no; |
| 224 | − if (sym->implied.expr && sym->dir_dep.tri != no) | |
| 224 | + if (sym->implied.expr) | |
| 225 | 225 | tri = expr_calc_value(sym->implied.expr); |
| 226 | 226 | if (tri == mod && sym_get_type(sym) == S_BOOLEAN) |
| 227 | 227 | tri = yes; |
| @@ -394,6 +394,8 @@ void sym_calc_value(struct symbol *sym) · 166 unmodified lines | ||
| 394 | 394 | if (sym->implied.tri != no) { |
| 395 | 395 | sym->flags |= SYMBOL_WRITE; |
| 396 | 396 | newval.tri = EXPR_OR(newval.tri, sym->implied.tri); |
| 397 | + newval.tri = EXPR_AND(newval.tri, | |
| 398 | + sym->dir_dep.tri); | |
| 397 | 399 | } |
| 398 | 400 | } |
| 399 | 401 | calc_newval: |