[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] powerpc: remove meaningless KBUILD_ARFLAGS addition
Segher Boessenkool <> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 05:05:34PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Segher Boessenkool <> writes:
>> > Yes, that is why I used the environment variable, all binutils work
>> > with that. There was no --target option in GNU ar before 2.22.
>> Yeah, we're not very good at testing with really old binutils, so I
>> guess we broke that.
>> I'm inclined to merge this, it doesn't seem to break anything, and it
>> fixes using --target on old binutils that don't have it.
> But we don't set the target any other way either. I don't think this
> will work with a 32-bit toolchain (default target 32 bit) and a 64-bit
> kernel, or the other way around.

I think it does, but maybe I'm misunderstanding.

My test setup is:

~/linux$ export PATH=/home/toolchains/ppc/gcc-8-branch/powerpc-linux/bin/:$PATH
~/linux$ echo "int test(void) { return 2; }" > test.c
~/linux$ powerpc-linux-gcc -c test.c
~/linux$ file test.o
test.o: ELF 32-bit MSB relocatable, PowerPC or cisco 4500, version 1 (SYSV), not stripped
~/linux$ make CROSS_COMPILE=powerpc-linux- -s ppc64le_defconfig
~/linux$ make CROSS_COMPILE=powerpc-linux- -s -j 320
~/linux$ echo $?

And it's definitely calling ar with no flags, eg:

rm -f init/built-in.a; powerpc-linux-ar rcSTPD init/built-in.a init/main.o init/version.o init/do_mounts.o init/do_mounts_rd.o init/do_mounts_initrd.o init/do_mounts_md.o init/initramfs.o init/init_task.o

So presumably at some point ar learnt to cope with objects that don't
match its default? (how do I ask it what its default is?)

> Then again, does that work at *all* nowadays? Do we even consider that
> important, *should* it work?

Yes and yes. There were a lot of bugs in the kernel makefiles after we
added LE support which prevented a biarch/biendian compiler from working.
But now it does work and we want it to keep working because it means you
can have a single compiler for building 32-bit, 64-bit BE & 64-bit LE.


 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-16 14:16    [W:0.142 / U:4.536 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site