[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 17:46:59 -0700
From: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>
To: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, Jian Cai <jiancai@...gle.com>,
Kristof Beyls <Kristof.Beyls@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/16] Add support for Clang LTO
On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 12:09:31PM -0800, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> Sure, looks good to me. However, I think we should also test for
> LLVM=1 to avoid possible further issues with mismatched toolchains
> instead of only checking for llvm-nm and llvm-ar.
It might still be worth testing for $(AR) and $(NM) because in theory, a
user could say 'make AR=ar LLVM=1'. Highly unlikely I suppose but worth
considering.
Cheers,
Nathan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
