Messages in this thread | | | From | Masahiro Yamada <> | Date | Mon, 19 Aug 2019 13:25:52 +0900 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] powerpc: remove meaningless KBUILD_ARFLAGS addition |
| |
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:43 PM Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote: > > Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org> writes: > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:19:58AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 1:46 AM Segher Boessenkool > >> <segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > >> Kbuild always uses thin archives as far as vmlinux is concerned. > >> > >> But, there are some other call-sites. > >> > >> masahiro@pug:~/ref/linux$ git grep '$(AR)' -- :^Documentation :^tools > >> arch/powerpc/boot/Makefile: BOOTAR := $(AR) > >> arch/unicore32/lib/Makefile: $(Q)$(AR) p $(GNU_LIBC_A) $(notdir $@) > $@ > >> arch/unicore32/lib/Makefile: $(Q)$(AR) p $(GNU_LIBGCC_A) $(notdir $@) > $@ > >> lib/raid6/test/Makefile: $(AR) cq $@ $^ > >> scripts/Kbuild.include:ar-option = $(call try-run, $(AR) rc$(1) > >> "$$TMP",$(1),$(2)) > >> scripts/Makefile.build: cmd_ar_builtin = rm -f $@; $(AR) > >> rcSTP$(KBUILD_ARFLAGS) $@ $(real-prereqs) > >> scripts/Makefile.lib: cmd_ar = rm -f $@; $(AR) > >> rcsTP$(KBUILD_ARFLAGS) $@ $(real-prereqs) > >> > >> Probably, you are interested in arch/powerpc/boot/Makefile. > > > > That one seems fine actually. The raid6 one I don't know. > > > > > > My original commit message was > > > > Without this, some versions of GNU ar fail to create > > an archive index if the object files it is packing > > together are of a different object format than ar's > > default format (for example, binutils compiled to > > default to 64-bit, with 32-bit objects). > > > > but I cannot reproduce the problem anymore. Shortly after my patch the > > thin archive code happened to binutils, and that overhauled some other > > things, which might have fixed it already? > > > >> > Yes, I know. This isn't about built-in.[oa], it is about *other* > >> > archives we at least *used to* create. If we *know* we do not anymore, > >> > then this workaround can of course be removed (and good riddance). > >> > >> If it is not about built-in.[oa], > >> which archive are you talking about? > >> > >> Can you pin-point the one? > > > > No, not anymore. Lost in the mists of time, I guess? I think we'll > > just have to file it as "it seems to work fine now". > > Yeah I think so. If someone finds a case it breaks we can fix it then. > > > Thank you (and everyone else) for the time looking at this! > > Likewise. > > cheers
So, we agreed to apply this patch, right?
Please let me know if there is some improvement that should be get done.
-- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
| |