From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17ADAC4320A for ; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 06:51:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDA9860232 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 06:51:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237698AbhG3GvI (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jul 2021 02:51:08 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39196 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S237463AbhG3GvG (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jul 2021 02:51:06 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-xd2c.google.com (mail-io1-xd2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9222C061765; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 23:51:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd2c.google.com with SMTP id m13so10189885iol.7; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 23:51:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=t11HKxEEH4asV/wZXTqt9J2Oni9bsKp96UbDJNXP4DE=; b=aKIp6ToGQeADU6hv6MlwcrPSol1BzQUQs9GX42LLESv9E8jJ095bPtgdnQ0Fzf+x+b 1yX6Yw4wR8GVGcufOq4oDpF6tFNaxHFrwXQINBq28/V+VAoQ/lSl/9kbpcskxqN+mP/+ OBSP9OfRfi7fKoGGda7RGbmkUYdDpVEOM/BFPmJ1LIht+22HIdoSjkEeWVfmb9s/UcDA oJUmHRIr0dfYxGaLDKTK7E9pV00xMkD/3RVLo+IVsRn/IHYRexYkfR7qsjg7pG0REDvc OKTabGVA4ktuF5yx1DE+oz8Llp2YZwh0z0NtkvssKuJcC6HYdQgvqHj8DNMJkm973biG IUaA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=t11HKxEEH4asV/wZXTqt9J2Oni9bsKp96UbDJNXP4DE=; b=qUgCiYuxNKyR0g/bNNtyK3SEVkDttEgqotBacC8YwvUxAnpRzYf9xi33kHChAB5Nxq NehKljiDR29Co2nYKqMuKYG8lU0QsL8k0MKP3wV53r5wo8ff9KY/IyruHqHTlZ0tPIIj peUjqxdVqgMnDgeI+XAv2SwVCHQQOOAxbRz/1VKYIHjfkk/pMxielTuRGTyoQ4u3JVQ6 jiLTZh/EqxhEQiI7/RqT5JZ35Q2dBzRSyQF0+4zL2nRIPBp/tmPGvzIyHTjUY2uvNyVI /3VvDD4tAIZIQqBdFHTk/7XU1fMC0739rR23KtLqN18JYNBMo073yeidXfBOAJfAVghJ gKNg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533m1dd8zlI+qbr9sRh/Yth1EqoHOUe5ecoxJQeIfDhZHD8NJIQ9 MPywAz0AsbpfwCww4Ot59HO9PbAIgNdRAtJpEet7kiV9 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyOF5nkGh/vdzLEcEPiQt8GaA5L8wh8PI6zmY2VPiGoxjiKfolqJBFRP1sRzcl5wz98kTRuH3ENrb6h6Dd1qdY= X-Received: by 2002:a02:9508:: with SMTP id y8mr953957jah.28.1627627862194; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 23:51:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210729165039.23896-1-ndesaulniers@google.com> <20210729165039.23896-3-ndesaulniers@google.com> <44117d0c-51b7-1f68-f752-ba53de503b14@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: From: Miguel Ojeda Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 08:50:51 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] Makefile: infer CROSS_COMPILE from SRCARCH for CC=clang LLVM_IAS=1 To: Nick Desaulniers Cc: Nathan Chancellor , Masahiro Yamada , Miguel Ojeda , Fangrui Song , Michal Marek , Arnd Bergmann , linux-kernel , Linux Kbuild mailing list , clang-built-linux , Geert Uytterhoeven , Christoph Hellwig , Linus Torvalds Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 2:19 AM Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > maximally flexible." We don't want folks generally using CC=clang; > preferably they'd use LLVM=1. I need to rewrite our docs to make that > more explicit and straightforward. And if folks would prefer to use > CC=clang for whatever reason, let them explicitly state CROSS_COMPILE > then. Perhaps it would be nice to clarify the "level of support" for `CC=clang` too, in particular long-term when `LLVM=1` works for all architectures. In other words, is `CC=clang` going to remain supported/maintained, or it will be something that will still compile/boot but not expected to be used by anyone in production, or dropped altogether (not the `CC` option itself, of course, I refer to the mix of toolchains)? Thanks, Cheers, Miguel