linux-kernel - Kconfig and toolchain dependencies

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4F2C51A5.1040800@zytor.com>
Date:	Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:29:09 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	"linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Kconfig and toolchain dependencies

Right now, we don't have a good way to encode toolchain dependencies in
Kconfig.  This makes it hard to add optional features which depend on
newer toolchain features.

If we just add them, then it breaks all*config and randconfig on
platforms with the older toolchains unless the user manually adds
exclusion rules.  This is bad for testing.

It seems relatively straightforward to do if we were to manifest some
CONFIG_ variables based on the target toolchain, e.g.

CONFIG_GCC=0x040601

... and perhaps do other tests.  I suspect we would run the tests less
frequently than what we do right now with the tests embedded in the
Makefile.

Does anyone have a feel for if this would be a good addition, and if so
where it best fits into the chain?

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/