linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ia64: minor Makefile simplification through use of cc-ifversion

lists.openwall.net		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 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce 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]

Message-Id: <200907242023.12478.elendil@planet.nl>
Date:	Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:23:11 +0200
From:	Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>
To:	Peter Chubb <peterc@...ato.unsw.edu.au>
Cc:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ia64: minor Makefile simplification through use of	cc-ifversion

On Friday 24 July 2009, Peter Chubb wrote:
> >>>>> "Sam" == Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> writes:
> Sam> The above change is correct.  But I really wonder if the original
> Sam> code was correct?  Do we really only want to use the -mtune
> Sam> options for this specific gcc version?  If this is indeed the
> Sam> case this deserves a comment explaning this.
>
> I suspect it should be all compilers after this one.  -mtune=mckinley
> didn't work very well in the early gcc 3 compilers and didn't exist in
> version 2.

How would you like to handle that? As it is essentially a separate issue, 
my suggestion would be: apply my patch as is and then (if needed) commit 
a separate patch to fix the incorrect comparisons on top.

Cheers,
FJP
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/