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:	Tue, 22 Mar 2016 08:10:10 +0100
From:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Cc:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
	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,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools lib api: respect CROSS_COMPILE for the linker

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 05:40:30PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 09:08:52AM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > 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:
> > > > 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?
> 
> > Steven explained his reason for allow-override in the comment above it,
> > please make sure the new solution follows that
> 
> Sure, and I'm no make guru, but what puzzles me is why isn't this
> required in:
> 
> [acme@...et linux]$ grep -w ^CC Makefile 
> CC		= $(CROSS_COMPILE)gcc
> [acme@...et linux]$

Steve has special requirements I guess ;-) CC-ed

> 
> > > What about having all this in a single place in tools/script/?
> > 
> > maybe tools/script/Makefile.comp
> 
> But then we would have to include multiple files in each Makefile,
> perhaps it would be better to stash this in
> tools/scripts/Makefile.include, that way we wouldn't have to include
> any new file.

sure, np

jirka