[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72kya-9zeGN4uTqLMbAUMDGu-SQXRAwS9UTxceeObbN9yg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 08:50:51 +0200
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Fangrui Song <maskray@...gle.com>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] Makefile: infer CROSS_COMPILE from SRCARCH for
CC=clang LLVM_IAS=1
On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 2:19 AM Nick Desaulniers
<ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> maximally flexible." We don't want folks generally using CC=clang;
> preferably they'd use LLVM=1. I need to rewrite our docs to make that
> more explicit and straightforward. And if folks would prefer to use
> CC=clang for whatever reason, let them explicitly state CROSS_COMPILE
> then.
Perhaps it would be nice to clarify the "level of support" for
`CC=clang` too, in particular long-term when `LLVM=1` works for all
architectures.
In other words, is `CC=clang` going to remain supported/maintained, or
it will be something that will still compile/boot but not expected to
be used by anyone in production, or dropped altogether (not the `CC`
option itself, of course, I refer to the mix of toolchains)?
Thanks,
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists