On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2018-02-21 18:56 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>:
>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Masahiro Yamada
>> <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 2018-02-20 0:18 GMT+09:00 Ulf Magnusson <ulfalizer@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> Let me clarify my concern.
>
> When we test the compiler flag, is there a case
> where a particular flag depends on -m{32,64} ?
>
> For example, is there a compiler that supports -fstack-protector
> for 64bit mode, but unsupports it for 32bit mode?
>
> $(cc-option -m32) -> y
> $(cc-option -m64) -> y
> $(cc-option -fstack-protector) -> y
> $(cc-option -m32 -fstack-protector) -> n
> $(cc-option -m64 -fstack-protector) -> y
>
> I guess this is unlikely to happen,
> but I am not whether it is zero possibility.
>
> If this could happen,
> $(cc-option ) must be evaluated together with
> correct bi-arch option (either -m32 or -m64).
>
>
> Currently, -m32/-m64 is specified in Makefile,
> but we are moving compiler tests to Kconfig
> and, CONFIG_64BIT can be dynamically toggled in Kconfig.
I don't think it can happen for this particular combination (stack protector
and word size), but I'm sure we'll eventually run into options that
need to be tested in combination. For the current CFLAGS_KERNEL
setting, we definitely have the case of needing the variables to be
evaluated in a specific order.
Arnd
--
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
