Hi, Maciej, On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 11:39 PM Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Jul 2023, Huacai Chen wrote: > > > Even if patch-2 resolves the problem, I don't think patch-3 is > > necessary because the original patch makes code simpler and more > > compact. > > Please don't top-post on a public mailing list. > > If you're referring to this part: > > +ifdef CONFIG_CPU_LOONGSON64 > +cflags-$(CONFIG_CPU_LOONGSON64) += -Wa,--trap > +cflags-$(CONFIG_CC_IS_GCC) += -march=loongson3a > +cflags-$(CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG) += -march=mips64r2 > +endif > > then it can be done with a separate clean-up. Otherwise it'll have been > lost in the noise. > > Firstly: > > cflags-$(CONFIG_CPU_LOONGSON64) += -Wa,--trap > > doesn't have to be wrapped in `ifdef CONFIG_CPU_LOONGSON64'. > > Secondly: > > cflags-$(CONFIG_CC_IS_GCC) += -march=loongson3a > cflags-$(CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG) += -march=mips64r2 > > document compiler peculiarities. Does Clang support, or intend to, > `-march=loongson3a'? If so, what version can we expect this stuff in? > GCC has had it since 4.6 or Y2010, which is pretty long ago. GCC support loongson3a/mips64r2, Clang only support mips64r2. If we use $(call cc-option,-march=loongson3a,-march=mips64r2) both GCC and Clang can work and we don't need to care about the compiler. Huacai > > Last but not least there are formatting anomalies there, which may have > to be dealt with in a separate change. > > Maciej
