Hi all!
On Thu, 2021-01-14 at 13:56 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 7:21 AM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> > If I copy a config with CONFIG_GCC_PLUGINS to another system which
> > doesn't have the gcc-plugin-devel package, it gets silently disabled by
> > "make olddefconfig".
> >
> > I've seen multiple cases lately where this is causing confusion. I
> > suspect the problem is getting worse with recent added support for a
> > variety of toolchains and toolchain-dependent features.
> >
> > Would it be possible to have an error (or at least a warning) in this
> > case?
> >
> > For example, a "depends-error" which triggers an error if its failure
> > would disable a feature?
[...]
> We disable any feature that is unsupported by the compiler in use.
>
> Conventionally, we did that in the top Makefile
> by using $(call cc-option, ) macro or by running some scripts.
>
> Recently, we are moving such compiler tests to the Kconfig stage.
>
> Anyway, we disable unsupported features so any combination
> of CONFIG options builds successfully.
> This will ease randconfg and allmodconfig tests.
For options of $CC, that makes sense since there are different
compilers and lots of versions of them out there.
> A lot of people and CI systems are running allmodconfig tests
> for various architectures and toolchains.
Isn't some kind of defying (or more killing) the usefulness
of regression compile runs if one does `make allmodconfig`
and some (lots?) of stuff gets automatically configured
out just because some
-dev(|el) package is missing?
Aren't there some kernel-build meta packages for various
distributions out there that pull all necessary in?
> Introducing the build breakage is annoying.
Yes, update/install the necessary package to fix it.
MfG,
Bernd
--
Bernd Petrovitsch Email : bernd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
There is no cloud, just other people computers. - FSFE
LUGA : http://www.luga.at
