Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 1 Oct 2019 18:07:53 +0100 | From | Will Deacon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64: vdso32: Introduce COMPAT_CC_IS_GCC |
| |
On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 09:59:43AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 9:47 AM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 04:30:56PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > In the long run, I wouldn't mandate CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT to always be > > > set for the compat vDSO since with clang we could use the same compiler > > > binary for both native and compat (with different flags). That's once we > > > cleaned up the headers. > > > > But we'll still need it even with clang so that the relevant triple can be > > passed to the --target option. The top-level Makefile already does this: > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Makefile#n544 > > That's not pulling the cross compiler out of a *config* (as this patch > is proposing); rather from an env var.
CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT is the environment variable, right? If not, then I have my terminology mixed up.
> > so I think we should do the same thing for the compat vdso as well, which > > would allow us to remove this complexity by requiring that > > CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT identifies the cross-compiler to use in exactly the > > same way as CROSS_COMPILE does. > > > > Am I missing something here? > > I think the second paragraph you wrote shows we're all in agreement, > but I suspect you may be conflating *how* the toplevel Makefile knows > we're doing a cross compile. It doesn't read a config, this patch > would make it so a cross compiler is specified via config, Catalin > asked "please no," I agree with Catalin (and I suspect you do too).
Yes, I'm saying let's have an environment variable only and drop the CONFIG stuff completely. I think this means that the environment variable must always be specified if you want the compat vDSO, but I don't see that as a problem.
Will
| |