[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201114002037.GW2672@gate.crashing.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 18:20:37 -0600
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
Brian Cain <bcain@...eaurora.org>,
Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray@...gle.com>,
kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>, kbuild-all@...ts.01.org,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Subject: Re: Error: invalid switch -me200
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 12:14:18PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > > Error: invalid switch -me200
> > > > Error: unrecognized option -me200
> > >
> > > 251 cpu-as-$(CONFIG_E200) += -Wa,-me200
> > >
> > > Are those all broken configs, or is Kconfig messed up such that
> > > randconfig can select these when it should not?
> >
> > Hmmm, looks like this flag does not exist in mainline binutils? There is
> > a thread in 2010 about this that Segher commented on:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/9859E645-954D-4D07-8003-FFCD2391AB6E@kernel.crashing.org/
> >
> > Guess this config should be eliminated?
The help text for this config options says that e200 is used in 55xx,
and there *is* an -me5500 GAS flag (which probably does this same
thing, too). But is any of this tested, or useful, or wanted?
Maybe Christophe knows, cc:ed.
Segher
Powered by blists - more mailing lists