[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <927f85844e31f0563523622134b5d01af6991e60.camel@xry111.site>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 13:03:58 +0800
From: Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>
To: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
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 Mon, 2022-08-29 at 12:33 +0800, Huacai Chen wrote:
> > 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.
> Whether we can drop old toolchains depends on Arnd. :)
I'd like to prepare V6 after we can make a final decision.
> But even if we should support old toolchains, I think we only need to
> consider new binutils + new gcc and old binutils + old gcc, I don't
> think new binutils + old gcc and old binutils + new gcc can exist in
> the real world.
Generally, how do we report an unsupported configuration in kernel
building system? With a $(error, "message") in the Makefile, or in some
header with a #error? I don't want to leave an unsupported
configuration silently generating modules which can't be loaded by the
kernel.
--
Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>
School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University
Powered by blists - more mailing lists