linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 4/5] powerpc/44x: Fix build failure with GCC 12 (unrecognized opcode: `wrteei')

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]

Message-ID: <CAK8P3a33jf5CUpyzWmRHpoUDMWB7TqSw5afUW=rcmMVSK8BvRA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Jul 2022 17:05:04 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Cc:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/5] powerpc/44x: Fix build failure with GCC 12
 (unrecognized opcode: `wrteei')

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 4:19 PM Christophe Leroy
<christophe.leroy@...roup.eu> wrote:
> @@ -183,6 +183,18 @@ config 405_CPU
>         bool "40x family"
>         depends on 40x
>
> +config 440_CPU
> +       bool "440 (44x family)"
> +       depends on 44x
> +
> +config 464_CPU
> +       bool "464 (44x family)"
> +       depends on 44x
> +
> +config 476_CPU
> +       bool "476 (47x family)"
> +       depends on PPC_47x

Is there any value in building for -mcpu=440 or -mcpu=464 when targeting a 476?
Maybe add another !PPC_47x dependency for the first two. Ideally we would also
enforce that 440/464 based boards cannot be selected together with 476, though
I guess that is a separate issue.

Is there a practical difference between 440 and 464 when building kernels?
gcc seems to treat them the same way, so maybe one option for both is enough
here.

     Arnd