Messages in this thread | | | From | Huacai Chen <> | Date | Mon, 29 Aug 2022 19:18:18 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/8] LoongArch: Support toolchain with new relocation types |
| |
Hi, Ruoyao,
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 1:04 PM Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xry111.site> wrote: > > On Mon, 2022-08-29 at 12:33 +0800, Huacai Chen wrote: > > > If we'll drop support for old GCC/Binutils, we can drop patch 5 (it's > > > only needed for the combination of old GCC and new Binutils). Then > > > squash 4 and 7. 8 should still be standalone IMO. > > > Whether we can drop old toolchains depends on Arnd. :) > > I'd like to prepare V6 after we can make a final decision. I think we can assume that we should support old toolchains until Arnd responds, but again, we can only consider new/new and old/old. > > > But even if we should support old toolchains, I think we only need to > > consider new binutils + new gcc and old binutils + old gcc, I don't > > think new binutils + old gcc and old binutils + new gcc can exist in > > the real world. > > Generally, how do we report an unsupported configuration in kernel > building system? With a $(error, "message") in the Makefile, or in some > header with a #error? I don't want to leave an unsupported > configuration silently generating modules which can't be loaded by the > kernel.
$(error, "message") in the Makefile is fine to me, you can "grep error arch -rwI | grep Makefile".
Huacai > > -- > Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xry111.site> > School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University >
| |