Messages in this thread | | | From | Nick Desaulniers <> | Date | Wed, 22 Mar 2023 11:17:35 -0700 | Subject | Re: Linux 6.3-rc3 |
| |
+ Masahiro and linux-kbuild for the proposal
On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 9:56 AM Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 9:40 AM Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > You have to pass `make LLVM=1` in any case... to `oldconfig` or when > > adding any MAKEFLAGS like -j${number-of-available-cpus}. > > I actually think we should look (again) at just making the compiler > choice (and the prefix) be a Kconfig option. > > That would simplify *so* many use cases. > > It used to be that gcc was "THE compiler" and anything else was just > an odd toy special case, but that's clearly not true any more.
<3
> > So it would be lovely to make the kernel choice a Kconfig choice - so > you'd set it only at config time, and then after that a kernel build > wouldn't need special flags any more, and you'd never need to play > games with GNUmakefile or anything like that. > > Yes, you'd still use environment variables (or make arguments) for > that initial Kconfig, but that's no different from the other > environment variables we already have, like KCONFIG_SEED that kconfig > uses internally, but also things like "$(ARCH)" that we already use > *inside* the Kconfig files themselves. > > I really dislike how you have to set ARCH and CROSS_COMPILE etc > externally, and can't just have them *in* the config file.
Not needing CROSS_COMPILE for LLVM=1 has been great. ;)
(Still need it for ARCH=s390 until LLD gets s390 support though)
> > So when you do cross-compiles, right now you have to do something like > > make ARCH=i386 allmodconfig > > to build the .config file, but then you have to *repeat* that > ARCH=i386 when you actually build things: > > make ARCH=i386 > > because the ARCH choice ends up being in the .config file, but the > makefiles themselves always take it from the environment. > > There are good historical reasons for our behavior (and probably a > number of extant practical reasons too), but it's a bit annoying, and > it would be lovely if we could start moving away from this model. > > Linus >
-- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers
| |