[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b681993ca92d5243a73e23303ff9386ad03cf05a.camel@xry111.site>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 00:17:32 +0800
From: Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>
To: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>
Cc: loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>,
Youling Tang <tangyouling@...ngson.cn>,
Jinyang He <hejinyang@...ngson.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] LoongArch: Support toolchain with new relocation
types
On Sun, 2022-08-28 at 22:15 +0800, Huacai Chen wrote:
> 1, You can still call it v5, even if it has changed a lot;
Ok, so should I call the next version v2 or v6?
Sorry for introducing such a mess :(.
> 2, In my opinion, patch 4,5,7,8 can be combined, but I don't insist if
> you have a good reason to separate.
If we'll drop support for old GCC/Binutils, we can drop patch 5 (it's
only needed for the combination of old GCC and new Binutils). Then
squash 4 and 7. 8 should still be standalone IMO.
> 3, If possible, I still prefer to remove old relocation types support,
> in order to make life easier, especially for objtool that is queued
> for upstream.
How about this? I'm not sure if it's proper to invoke "error" in
Makefile.
ifneq ($(shell $(CC) $(srctree)/arch/loongarch/scripts/toolchain-check.c &> /dev/null -o /dev/null && echo "ok"), ok)
ifdef CONFIG_MODULES
$(error "toolchain is too old for LoongArch modular kernel")
endif
endif
toolchain-check.c:
#if !__has_attribute(model)
#error no model attribute
#endif
int main()
{
__asm__("x:pcalau12i $t0,%pc_hi20(x)");
}
--
Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>
School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University
Powered by blists - more mailing lists