Re: [PATCH 04/10] module: make MODULE_SYMBOL_PREFIX into a CONFIG option

From: Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>
To: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com>
Cc: Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk>,
	greg@kroah.com, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org,
	carmelo73@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	rusty@rustcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] module: make MODULE_SYMBOL_PREFIX into a CONFIG option
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 23:07:50 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091103140750.GC12841@linux-sh.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8bd0f97a0911030558h58725a95m31bb2f73c0772547@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 08:58:49AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 08:46, Paul Mundt wrote:
> > The other thing you seem to have ignored is that pretty much everyone has
> > such a system, it's only crippled platforms like blackfin and h8300 that
> > don't support toolchains without the prefix.
> 
> "cripple" is exactly the right word.  why in the world do you want to
> cripple people that dont need it ?  attempting to support busted
> toolchains by forcing even more symbol prefix crap throughout an arch
> makes no sense at all.  use the -fno-leading-underscore gcc option if
> you want to re-use a non-standard symbol prefixed elf compiler to
> build an arch.

My main consideration is for some SH-2 compilers where only bare metal
targets exist which could theoretically be used for the kernel, too. I've
avoided tying them in precisely because there wasn't a very clean way to
support the prefixed and non-prefixed case dynamically.

On the other hand, in those cases I don't think anyone actually cares
about the ABI, so having gcc not emit the prefix in the first place could
be a valid alternative, I'll give that a try, as that would simplify
things a fair bit.