linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH]: Remove CONFIG_BUILD_ELF64 entirely

To: vagabon.xyz@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Remove CONFIG_BUILD_ELF64 entirely
From: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:45:11 +0900 (JST)
Cc: ralf@linux-mips.org, kumba@gentoo.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, ths@networkno.de
In-reply-to: <cda58cb80703260831t576ff7c5wef1e34e3367e7c45@mail.gmail.com>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <cda58cb80703260654u4435b90axa28507f6c9011c00@mail.gmail.com> <20070326.234821.30439266.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> <cda58cb80703260831t576ff7c5wef1e34e3367e7c45@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:31:18 +0200, "Franck Bui-Huu" <vagabon.xyz@gmail.com> 
wrote:
> I suspect you're asking why I did not do this:

Yes.

> 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.

I think dropping gcc 3.x support for 64-bit kernel is not what we
wanted.  And -msym32 is just an optimization and kernel should be
buildable without it.  So "remove -msym32 silently" is not so bad, I
suppose.

"If you used newer compiler, you can get better result" is natural
thing, isn't it? ;)
---
Atsushi Nemoto

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