lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Aug]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [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
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-08-29 14:20    [W:0.618 / U:0.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site