From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 04 Aug 2016 16:05:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]:34034 "EHLO linux-mips.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S23993049AbcHDOF3abKu2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Aug 2016 16:05:29 +0200 Received: from scotty.linux-mips.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by scotty.linux-mips.net (8.15.2/8.14.8) with ESMTP id u74E5SK6025085; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 16:05:28 +0200 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by scotty.linux-mips.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id u74E5Q0Q025084; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 16:05:26 +0200 Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 16:05:26 +0200 From: Ralf Baechle To: Paul Gortmaker Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, James Hartley , Ionela Voinescu , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: dont specify STACKPROTECTOR in defconfigs Message-ID: <20160804140526.GA23195@linux-mips.org> References: <20160803190359.6486-1-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160803190359.6486-1-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 54413 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: linux-mips X-List-ID: linux-mips List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: linux-mips On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 03:03:59PM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > Only one defconfig has a STACKPROTECTOR value. And it asks for > the strong variant, which isn't supported by older toolchains. > > Due to the nature of MIPS having more platform specific code than say > x86, the allyesconfig and allmodconfig aren't as effective for build > coverage. So, in addition, I like to use a trivial script to walk all > the defconfigs and build each one. > > However I will get false positives on unsupported stackprotector values > with an older toolchain like gcc-4.6.3. As in this instance I am just > using the compiler as a glorified syntax checker on a machine where I > build a bunch of other arch for the same reason, there is no real > motivation to get a newer toolchain for improved optimization etc. > > Since there is only one of them, and there is nothing about these > settings that are board/platform specific, I propose we just eliminate > the existing instance and take the default. Yeah, I can see how that one may get annoying. I wish there was something along the lines of KCONFIG_ALLCONFIG that was working not only for allyesconfig/allmodconfig/allnoconfig/randconfig. Applied. Thanks, Ralf