Re: [PATCH 0/8] LoongArch: Support toolchain with new relocation types

[Huacai Chen]

Hi, Ruoyao,

On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 1:04 PM Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2022-08-29 at 12:33 +0800, Huacai Chen wrote:
> > > If we'll drop support for old GCC/Binutils, we can drop patch 5 (it's
> > > only needed for the combination of old GCC and new Binutils).  Then
> > > squash 4 and 7.  8 should still be standalone IMO.
>
> > Whether we can drop old toolchains depends on Arnd. :)
>
> I'd like to prepare V6 after we can make a final decision.
I think we can assume that we should support old toolchains until Arnd
responds, but again, we can only consider new/new and old/old.
>
> > But even if we should support old toolchains, I think we only need to
> > consider new binutils + new gcc and old binutils + old gcc, I don't
> > think new binutils + old gcc and old binutils + new gcc can exist in
> > the real world.
>
> Generally, how do we report an unsupported configuration in kernel
> building system?  With a $(error, "message") in the Makefile, or in some
> header with a #error?  I don't want to leave an unsupported
> configuration silently generating modules which can't be loaded by the
> kernel.

$(error, "message") in the Makefile is fine to me,  you can "grep
error arch -rwI | grep Makefile".

Huacai
>
> --
> Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University
>