* Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > El Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:20:54AM +0200 Ingo Molnar ha dit: > > > > > * Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Ingo didn't like the duplication and suggested the use of a variable, which > > > kinda implies a check for the compiler name. > > > > I don't think it implies that: why cannot cc_stack_align_opt probe for the > > compiler option and use whichever is available, without hard-coding the compiler > > name? > > We could do this: > > ifneq ($(call __cc-option, $(CC), -mno-sse, -mpreferred-stack-boundary=3,),) > cc_stack_align_opt := -mpreferred-stack-boundary > endif > ifneq ($(call cc-option, -mstack-alignment=3,),) > cc_stack_align_opt := -mstack-alignment > endif The principle Looks good to me - but I'd make the second probing an 'else' branch, i.e. probe for a suitable compiler option until we find one. That would also not burden the GCC build with probing for different compiler options. Please also add a comment in the code that explains that the first option is a GCC option and the second one is a Clang-ism. > Since this solution also won't win a beauty price please let me know > if it is acceptable before respinning the patch or if you have other > suggestions. This one already looks a lot cleaner to me than any of the previous ones. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
