Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:33:34 +0100 | | From | Ingo Molnar <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] kbuild: work around distcc/icecc madness |
| |
* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > --- > > > > > scripts/Kbuild.include | 5 +++-- > > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > Doesnt fully work: > > > > > > > > arch/x86/kernel/entry_32.S:346: Error: unknown pseudo-op: `.cfi_signal_frame' > > > > arch/x86/kernel/entry_32.S:394: Error: unknown pseudo-op: `.cfi_signal_frame' > > > > arch/x86/kernel/entry_32.S:519: Error: unknown pseudo-op: `.cfi_signal_frame' > > > > arch/x86/kernel/entry_32.S:614: Error: unknown pseudo-op: `.cfi_signal_frame' > > > > arch/x86/kernel/entry_32.S:685: Error: unknown pseudo-op: `.cfi_signal_frame' > > > > arch/x86/kernel/entry_32.S:754: Error: unknown pseudo-op: `.cfi_signal_frame' > > > > > > > > config attached. Distcc driven build. > > > > > > Same config works fine here. Do you have different > > > compilers/binutils on your distcc cluster ? I tripped over this > > > distcc feature in the past, that's why I have switched to iceccc. > > > > the distcc binutils is different from the host build environment > > binutils and compiler. This always worked fine - can we preserve > > it? > > It depends what you define as "worked fine".
as in "did not fail the build" :-)
> The point is that the CFI checks are done at compile time by > checking binutils. If you have two versions - one with and one > without CFI support - then it's just a question of luck which one > is checked. So in your case it might have worked because both > distcc and your local gcc agreed that CFI is not enabled, but the > reason why the distcc check for CFI fails is because it fails to > handle the stdin input and not because it does not support CFI. > > So with my patch distcc gives you the correct answer, but now you > trip over the local binutils lack of CFI support. > > I don't think that such a setup is something we need to preserve.
i dont do anything weird. i use:
CROSS_COMPILE='distcc /opt/crosstool/gcc-4.2.2-glibc-2.3.6/i686-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/i686-unknown-linux-gnu-'
host compiler was never supposed to be the same in terms of capability as target compiler.
Ingo
|  |