[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdme29UPfaV1CCbMXRM=LzZJ-asytEjGm_F7ARN0WrMsEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 16:32:52 -0800
From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
Cc: Alex Matveev <alxmtvv@...il.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim.kuvyrkov@...aro.org>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] kbuild: add ld-name macro and support for GNU gold
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com> wrote:
> GNU gold may require different flags than GNU ld. Add a macro for
> detecting the linker and conditionally add gold specific flags from
> LDFLAGS_GOLD.
Right, but you're still only ever using one linker per build, correct?
Can we get away without 2 distinct flags?
> +# Add any flags specific to ld.gold
> +ifeq ($(ld-name),gold)
> +LDFLAGS += $(LDFLAGS_GOLD)
> +endif
> +
Patch 1 and 6 have this pattern of always assigning to LDFLAGS_GOLD,
then that to LDFLAGS. Wouldn't it be better to check the ld-name and
conditionally assign to LDFLAGS? Then LDFLAGS_GOLD is not necessary.
For example, what I'm suggesting is what is done in patch 4.
> +# ld-name
> +# Expands to either bfd or gold
> +ld-name = $(shell $(LD) -v 2>&1 | grep -q "GNU gold" && echo gold || echo bfd)
> +
This part LGTM.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists