[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH]: Remove CONFIG_BUILD_ELF64 entirely

To: "Atsushi Nemoto" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Remove CONFIG_BUILD_ELF64 entirely
From: "Franck Bui-Huu" <>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:31:18 +0200
Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=noZZYmb60KRkyST5hnGs5lutJuNXA082c+H6LCBoF2g0VXWEh/miXdg8xp4YQkj1Oc+vzKFXhH43wPJsAAW+ETLPmeQlUIz6MiDhg0RU9Zs7xO/3OFTU2aRjC/1mOjoxM2aZnfYQgtLD8XrsZyWRqz8875VHIf3u5J8x/piMt9s=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=nXlx7aX2xYyzB77Y0CUyIqxrwb4dTF9YvRxRW1B/XJb+I2H5J/jR+Mv1UWvkqx0O6d9VBaqQrBGWJylBlG7AcAzF/Z2zHO6jCvkAH2K3w2aGFmK/SuA5uq6DXnule9xWqbWG1fWQgapcZy+or5XNh1l+h3NdDG0Uqr+TWoPnsTM=
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <>
Hi Atsushi,

On 3/26/07, Atsushi Nemoto <> wrote:
One thing I noticed recently: Your patchset dropped gcc test for
availability of -msym32, so may not work with gcc 3.x.

I suspect you're asking why I did not do this:

diff --git a/arch/mips/Makefile b/arch/mips/Makefile
index 3ec0c12..b0d8240 100644
--- a/arch/mips/Makefile
+++ b/arch/mips/Makefile
@@ -627,7 +627,7 @@ ifdef CONFIG_64BIT

  ifeq ($(KBUILD_SYM32), y)
-    cflags-y += -msym32 -DKBUILD_64BIT_SYM32
+    cflags-y += $(call cc-option,-msym32) -DKBUILD_64BIT_SYM32

I remove the call to cc-option because this function removes
_silently_ '-msym32' option if it's not supported by the compiler. IOW
it's really not what we want.

IIRC I haven't found an other function like 'cc-option-strict' which
makes a compilation error in case.

So I assumed that the compiler will complain if it doesn't understand
this option. But it may be incorrect. If so I can add an error message
in Kbuild or add a new Kbuild helper. But I'd like to understand
what's wrong with it before.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>