Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1112171109210.2907@xanadu.home>
Date:	Sat, 17 Dec 2011 11:38:34 -0500 (EST)
From:	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
To:	Janusz Krzysztofik <jkrzyszt@....icnet.pl>
cc:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: Fix cross compilation broken by failing size
 command

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011, Janusz Krzysztofik wrote:

> On Saturday 17 of December 2011 at 11:57:37, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:42:26AM +0100, Janusz Krzysztofik wrote:
> > > Unfortunately, I've already pushed that old version to the patch system
> > > at http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/, which I know is not
> > > a review system. Apparently, I was not patient enough, not waiting more
> > > than a week with that regression fix for a single reply to my initial
> > 
> > I'll disagree with you there: this is not a regression fix.  A regression
> > fix implies that it was something that worked before, a change happened
> > to the kernel, and now it's broken.
> > 
> > That is not the case: a change happened to binutils
> 
> Not to mine, I'm still using the same version as before.
> 
> > which meant 'size'
> > no longer parses foreign ELF formats. 
> 
> But 'size' was not there before v3.2-rc1! The problem has arised because 
> arch/arm/boot/compress/Makefile, which belongs to the kernel sources, 
> not to binutils you're trying to blame, was changed. The 'size' call was 
> introduced into that Makefile, i.e. the file that belongs to the kernel 
> sources, whithout taking care of what can happen if that command fails. 
> And I was just lucky enough to find out it may fail in certains build 
> environments, like mine.

OK let's stop arguing in circles please.

I introduced the call to 'size' so by definition I'm the one who broke 
the build for you.

However I don't have any problem using the native 'size' command with a 
foreign architecture binary.  My binutils version is 2.21.51.0.6 on 
X86-64.  And clearly I'm not alone in that situation otherwise we would 
have been overwhelmed by complaints from a much bigger crowd by now.  So 
your installation must be "special".

OTOH all cross-compiler installations I've seen had $(CROSS_COMPILE)size 
available.  It is therefore well possible that Russell's cross compiler 
installation is also "special".

Given that the build works for the vast majority of people now, there is 
a risk that applying your first patch might break the build for more 
people (currently only one known) than the number of people for whom 
this is an improvement (currently only one known).

I suggested a simple fix for Russell's installation already:

	ln -s size arm-linux-size

I don't know what is special about yours though, and maybe it is worth 
investigating given that, as I said, you appear to be alone so far 
having problems with the current Makefile which is rather intriguing.  
If it is clear with references to facts (binutils release notes, etc.) 
that the problem is something that will persist in the future then we 
have a more solid basis for choosing either of your solutions.  
Otherwise we can't call it a "regression" just yet.


Nicolas
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists