lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:51:50 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Geert Uytterhoeven <>
To:	Rob Landley <>
cc:	Finn Thain <>,
	Sam Ravnborg <>,
	LKML <>,
	Linux/m68k <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make m68k cross compile like every other architecture.

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Thursday 11 October 2007 11:26:07 am Finn Thain wrote:
> My toolchains override the default prefix to just the target, resulting 
> in "m68k-gcc".  (It's shorter, and when you're creating a dozen toolchains 
> having them all say -linux- in the middle of every command name gets a bit 
> silly...)
> When it started complaining about "m68k-linux-gnu-gcc" (which is _not_ what my 
> cross compiler is called) I spent half an hour tracking down where it was 
> getting that name from and what exactly was going on.  (Was my build script 
> supplying the wrong name?  Did something set an environment variable it 
> shouldn't have?  Did the gcc build suddenly reveal another strange buried 
> corner case that made it revert to a default against explicit instructions 
> _again_?)
> When I found the surprising behavior that cost me time and effort to diagnose, 
> I submitted a patch so it wouldn't confuse future developers the first time 
> _they_ try to build m68k.  (Yes, I think there might be such.  Call me 
> crazy.)  I've seen "didn't specify any cross compiler" failures before, on 
> arm and x86-64 and mips and sparc and so on.  I've seen it in the linux 
> kernel, in busybox, in uClibc, and in various gnu packages 
> with ./configureitis.  This is the first time I've seen a package confidently 
> decide for itself to use a compiler name that isn't in the $PATH, and 
> especially the first time I've seen Linux do it.  It cost me time to 
> disagnose because it looks like it's getting a CROSS_COMPILE setting from its 
> environment somehow, and the logical thing to do is look at that environment 
> (and the build scripts driving it, and the temp files) to see where such a 
> thing might be leaking in from.  The fact it might be hallucinating its own 
> value was not my first guess, because nothing else I've encountered does that 
> in this context.
> > This wasn't an issue before we came to depend on cross compilers. Since we
> > tend to need them more as compilation becomes more expensive, IMHO we
> > should follow the practice of the embedded architectures.
> That topic's a can of worms, but I point out that you always needed a cross 
> compiler to bootstrap a new platform. :)
> If you're going to support cross compiling at all, you might as well do it 
> more or less consistently for all targets.

If your cross-compiler is called differently than the default on in
arch/*/Makefile, what's the problem with calling?

    make ARCH=myarch CROSS_COMPILE=my-cross-compile-prefx-

This has been working for +10 years on all non-ia32 platforms I ever worked on.



Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 --

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists