linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tools lib api: respect CROSS

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]

Date:	Fri, 18 Mar 2016 12:42:59 -0500
From:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Cc:	Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de,
	patchwork-lst@...gutronix.de, Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>,
	acme@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools lib api: respect CROSS_COMPILE for the linker

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 02:38:52PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:16:23PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf escreveu:
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 01:45:22PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Em Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:38:15AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf escreveu:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 01:25:47PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Which is different from what the kernel does in its main Makefile:
> 
> > > # Make variables (CC, etc...)
> > > AS              = $(CROSS_COMPILE)as
> > > LD              = $(CROSS_COMPILE)ld
> > > CC              = $(CROSS_COMPILE)gcc
> 
> > > I wonder if we could settle in one of these styles or if there is really
> > > a reason to be creative :-)
> 
> > > Better, all this could go to tools/scripts/Makefile.include?
>  
> > Yeah, I agree that it would be good to come up with a common and
> > consistent approach tools-wide if possible.
> 
> <SNOP>
> > So 'allow-override' would probably be a good option.
> 
> Humm, my preference is to make tools/ look like the kernel, and the
> kernel doesn't use that allow-override thing, right? So perhaps add what
> is missing to make it look exactly like the kernel and then ditch this
> allow-override thing?

To achieve that I think the 'hostprogs' stuff would also need to be
ported over.  Not sure how much work that would be.

> What about having all this in a single place in tools/script/?

Having it in a single place sounds good to me.

-- 
Josh