On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:47 AM Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:06:50AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > > On 9/25/19 6:08 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 09:53:16AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 6:09 AM Catalin Marinas > > >> <catalin.mari...@arm.com> wrote: > > >>> Suggestions for future improvements of the compat vDSO handling: > > >>> > > >>> - replace the CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT prefix with a full COMPATCC; maybe > > >>> check that it indeed produces 32-bit code > > > > CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT is called like this for symmetry with CROSS_COMPILE. > > Actually, what gets in the way is the CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT_VDSO. > We can keep CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT together with COMPATCC initialised to > $(CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT)gcc. When we will be able to build the compat > vDSO with clang, we just pass COMPATCC=clang on the make line and the > kernel Makefile will figure out the --target option from > CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT (see how CLANG_FLAGS is handled). > > If we stick only to env variables or make cmd line (without Kconfig) for > the compiler name, we can add a COMPATCC_IS_CLANG in the Kconfig > directly and simply not allow the enabling the COMPAT_VDSO if we don't > have the right compiler. This saves us warnings during build.
Yes, I think this would be a nice approach. -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers