From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.196]:53950 "EHLO relay4-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751405Ab2BDSdH (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Feb 2012 13:33:07 -0500 Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:32:59 -0800 From: Josh Triplett Subject: Re: Kconfig and toolchain dependencies Message-ID: <20120204183259.GA28208@leaf> References: <4F2C51A5.1040800@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F2C51A5.1040800@zytor.com> Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: "linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Ingo Molnar On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 01:29:09PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > It seems relatively straightforward to do if we were to manifest some > CONFIG_ variables based on the target toolchain, e.g. > > CONFIG_GCC=0x040601 > > ... and perhaps do other tests. I suspect we would run the tests less > frequently than what we do right now with the tests embedded in the > Makefile. > > Does anyone have a feel for if this would be a good addition, and if so > where it best fits into the chain? This seems like a *great* idea. Unfortunately, a quick look at the implementation of kbuild suggests that it doesn't currently implement numeric comparisons (<, <=, >, >=), only equality (= and !=). Most of the time, a Kconfig file will want to write "depends GCC >= some_version". Looking at scripts/kconfig/expr.c, it doesn't look that hard to add, though. - Josh Triplett