Re: [PATCH] Makefile: fix up CROSS_COMPILE and READABLE_ASM interaction.

Re: [PATCH] Makefile: fix up CROSS_COMPILE and READABLE_ASM interaction.

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org> wrote:
> (Apologies for the re-send, forgot to Cc linux-kernel)
>
> When the READABLE_ASM cc-option tests were added they were done so prior
> to the arch Makefile include, resulting in cc-option being run on the
> host cc instead of the factoring in the cross prefix set up by the
> architecture.
>
> This bumps the include back up so that cc-option actually runs on the
> compiler that we're building with.

I find it a real pity these reported, hard to investigate, and fixed
build issues keep
flowing into mainline, without the corresponding fix...

https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/12/36

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Re: [PATCH] Makefile: fix up CROSS_COMPILE and READABLE_ASM interaction.

[Paul Mundt]

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:17:59AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org> wrote:
> > (Apologies for the re-send, forgot to Cc linux-kernel)
> >
> > When the READABLE_ASM cc-option tests were added they were done so prior
> > to the arch Makefile include, resulting in cc-option being run on the
> > host cc instead of the factoring in the cross prefix set up by the
> > architecture.
> >
> > This bumps the include back up so that cc-option actually runs on the
> > compiler that we're building with.
> 
> I find it a real pity these reported, hard to investigate, and fixed
> build issues keep
> flowing into mainline, without the corresponding fix...
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/12/36
> 
Agreed. These one-off things are always a nuisance, and often fall
through the cracks. I've yet to find a good solution for them, although
having them rolled in to -next helps.

In this case I got bit by -fno-partial-inlining instead, and since you
didn't have READABLE_ASM in the subject I missed your patch entirely. In
retrospect I should have searched for cc-option. At least we've now both
scratched our heads and come up with an identical fix independently,
which counts a lot more than a Tested-by ;-)