Re: [PATCH 6.1 127/134] purgatory: fix disabling debug info

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 02:38:38PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 02:23:03PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > From: Alyssa Ross <hi@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > [ Upstream commit d83806c4c0cccc0d6d3c3581a11983a9c186a138 ]
> >
> > Since 32ef9e5054ec, -Wa,-gdwarf-2 is no longer used in KBUILD_AFLAGS.
> > Instead, it includes -g, the appropriate -gdwarf-* flag, and also the
> > -Wa versions of both of those if building with Clang and GNU as.  As a
> > result, debug info was being generated for the purgatory objects, even
> > though the intention was that it not be.
> >
> > Fixes: 32ef9e5054ec ("Makefile.debug: re-enable debug info for .S files")
> > Signed-off-by: Alyssa Ross <hi@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Acked-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  arch/riscv/purgatory/Makefile | 7 +------
> >  arch/x86/purgatory/Makefile   | 3 +--
> >  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/purgatory/Makefile b/arch/riscv/purgatory/Makefile
> > index d16bf715a586b..5730797a6b402 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/purgatory/Makefile
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/purgatory/Makefile
> > @@ -84,12 +84,7 @@ CFLAGS_string.o			+= $(PURGATORY_CFLAGS)
> >  CFLAGS_REMOVE_ctype.o		+= $(PURGATORY_CFLAGS_REMOVE)
> >  CFLAGS_ctype.o			+= $(PURGATORY_CFLAGS)
> >
> > -AFLAGS_REMOVE_entry.o		+= -Wa,-gdwarf-2
> > -AFLAGS_REMOVE_memcpy.o		+= -Wa,-gdwarf-2
> > -AFLAGS_REMOVE_memset.o		+= -Wa,-gdwarf-2
>
> > -AFLAGS_REMOVE_strcmp.o		+= -Wa,-gdwarf-2
> > -AFLAGS_REMOVE_strlen.o		+= -Wa,-gdwarf-2
> > -AFLAGS_REMOVE_strncmp.o		+= -Wa,-gdwarf-2
>
> How about just deleting these 3 lines, rather than pulling back commit
> 56e0790c7f9e ("RISC-V: add infrastructure to allow different str*
> implementations") <20230418120317.572094889@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> as that is just going to be a bunch of dead code?

Hmm, in the port to 6.1 I submitted <20230417153147.1915266-1-hi@xxxxxxxxx>,
I did just drop those lines.  Did I get it wrong somehow to have it not
picked up?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux