From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH] kbuild: Disallow GCC 4.1.0 / 4.1.1 Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 18:51:48 +0000 Message-ID: <20090102185148.GI28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20081231105425.9ccac21d.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20081231.141408.60544902.davem@davemloft.net> <20090102115547.GB3027@elte.hu> <20090102175737.GA5818@uranus.ravnborg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Sam Ravnborg , Ingo Molnar , David Miller , Andrew Morton , rdreier@cisco.com, ian.campbell@citrix.com, jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com, deller@gmx.de, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kyle@mcmartin.ca, randolph@tausq.org, dave@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca To: Linus Torvalds Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-ID: List-Id: linux-parisc.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 10:04:27AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > > Bugger.... > > Now I cannot do cross compile for: alpha, arm, m68k and sparc. > > > > Not that I actually try to run these beasts but just being able > > to do cross compile has served me well. > > We _could_ make a "CONFIG_COMPILE_ONLY" check, but wouldn't it be even > nicer to make sure the cross-compiles are something that might actually be > expected to work? > > I realize that cross-tools tend to lag a bit - the pressure to maintain > them tends to be much lower - but I was sure we had somebody who did a > reasonable cross-compiler toolchain. Is gcc-4.1 really the most modern > thing that is easily available? FWIW, I'm using 4.3 on all targets at the moment. See git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/toolchain.git/ for fedora-based variant of that sucker. And yes, it does include cross-to-sparc; all but sh/sh64, in fact (sh had serious compiler breakage around 4.3.0 and backporting from -HEAD was far beyond what I considered reasonable at that point).