bpf: Replace deprecated -target with --target= for Clang

The -target option has been deprecated since clang 3.4 in 2013. Therefore, use
the preferred --target=bpf form instead. This also matches how we use --target=
in scripts/Makefile.clang.

Signed-off-by: Fangrui Song <maskray@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Acked-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com>
Link: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/274b6f0c87a6a1798de0a68135afc7f95def6277
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230624001856.1903733-1-maskray@google.com

3 files changed, 10 insertions, 10 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst
index 609b71f5747d..de27e1620821 100644
--- a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst
+++ b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst
@@ -635,12 +635,12 @@ test coverage.
 
 Q: clang flag for target bpf?
 -----------------------------
-Q: In some cases clang flag ``-target bpf`` is used but in other cases the
+Q: In some cases clang flag ``--target=bpf`` is used but in other cases the
 default clang target, which matches the underlying architecture, is used.
 What is the difference and when I should use which?
 
 A: Although LLVM IR generation and optimization try to stay architecture
-independent, ``-target <arch>`` still has some impact on generated code:
+independent, ``--target=<arch>`` still has some impact on generated code:
 
 - BPF program may recursively include header file(s) with file scope
   inline assembly codes. The default target can handle this well,
@@ -658,7 +658,7 @@ independent, ``-target <arch>`` still has some impact on generated code:
   The clang option ``-fno-jump-tables`` can be used to disable
   switch table generation.
 
-- For clang ``-target bpf``, it is guaranteed that pointer or long /
+- For clang ``--target=bpf``, it is guaranteed that pointer or long /
   unsigned long types will always have a width of 64 bit, no matter
   whether underlying clang binary or default target (or kernel) is
   32 bit. However, when native clang target is used, then it will
@@ -668,7 +668,7 @@ independent, ``-target <arch>`` still has some impact on generated code:
   while the BPF LLVM back end still operates in 64 bit. The native
   target is mostly needed in tracing for the case of walking ``pt_regs``
   or other kernel structures where CPU's register width matters.
-  Otherwise, ``clang -target bpf`` is generally recommended.
+  Otherwise, ``clang --target=bpf`` is generally recommended.
 
 You should use default target when:
 
@@ -685,7 +685,7 @@ when:
   into these structures is verified by the BPF verifier and may result
   in verification failures if the native architecture is not aligned with
   the BPF architecture, e.g. 64-bit. An example of this is
-  BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_MSG require ``-target bpf``
+  BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_MSG require ``--target=bpf``
 
 
 .. Links
diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst b/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst
index 7cd7c5415a99..f32db1f44ae9 100644
--- a/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst
+++ b/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst
@@ -990,7 +990,7 @@ format.::
     } g2;
     int main() { return 0; }
     int test() { return 0; }
-    -bash-4.4$ clang -c -g -O2 -target bpf t2.c
+    -bash-4.4$ clang -c -g -O2 --target=bpf t2.c
     -bash-4.4$ readelf -S t2.o
       ......
       [ 8] .BTF              PROGBITS         0000000000000000  00000247
@@ -1000,7 +1000,7 @@ format.::
       [10] .rel.BTF.ext      REL              0000000000000000  000007e0
            0000000000000040  0000000000000010          16     9     8
       ......
-    -bash-4.4$ clang -S -g -O2 -target bpf t2.c
+    -bash-4.4$ clang -S -g -O2 --target=bpf t2.c
     -bash-4.4$ cat t2.s
       ......
             .section        .BTF,"",@progbits
diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst b/Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst
index e4a777a6a3a2..450e6403fe3d 100644
--- a/Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst
+++ b/Documentation/bpf/llvm_reloc.rst
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ For example, for the following code::
     return g1 + g2 + l1 + l2;
   }
 
-Compiled with ``clang -target bpf -O2 -c test.c``, the following is
+Compiled with ``clang --target=bpf -O2 -c test.c``, the following is
 the code with ``llvm-objdump -dr test.o``::
 
        0:       18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll
@@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ and ``call`` instructions. For example::
     return gfunc(a, b) +  lfunc(a, b) + global;
   }
 
-Compiled with ``clang -target bpf -O2 -c test.c``, we will have
+Compiled with ``clang --target=bpf -O2 -c test.c``, we will have
 following code with `llvm-objdump -dr test.o``::
 
   Disassembly of section .text:
@@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ The following is an example to show how R_BPF_64_ABS64 could be generated::
   int global() { return 0; }
   struct t { void *g; } gbl = { global };
 
-Compiled with ``clang -target bpf -O2 -g -c test.c``, we will see a
+Compiled with ``clang --target=bpf -O2 -g -c test.c``, we will see a
 relocation below in ``.data`` section with command
 ``llvm-readelf -r test.o``::