[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2307211149070.17594@angie.orcam.me.uk>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2023 11:53:34 +0100 (BST)
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...am.me.uk>
To: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>
cc: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw@...-owl.de>,
Guillaume Tucker <guillaume.tucker@...labora.com>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...ngson.cn>,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] MIPS: Fix build issues from the introduction of
`need-compiler'
Hi Huacai,
> > Secondly:
> >
> > cflags-$(CONFIG_CC_IS_GCC) += -march=loongson3a
> > cflags-$(CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG) += -march=mips64r2
> >
> > document compiler peculiarities. Does Clang support, or intend to,
> > `-march=loongson3a'? If so, what version can we expect this stuff in?
> > GCC has had it since 4.6 or Y2010, which is pretty long ago.
> GCC support loongson3a/mips64r2, Clang only support mips64r2. If we use
> $(call cc-option,-march=loongson3a,-march=mips64r2)
> both GCC and Clang can work and we don't need to care about the compiler.
This may well be a change we desire, but it has to be made and reviewed
on its own rather than being buried within a set of unrelated changes.
Then the rationale has to be given in the change description and a comment
put in code explaining that it's not the usual case of old/new compiler,
so that we can catch it later and remove should Clang developers decide to
include `-march=loongson3a' support and our version requirements catch up.
Maciej
Powered by blists - more mailing lists