Re: post-halloween 0.2

[Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>]

On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 11:57:58AM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> >> > Can you also mention not using gcc 3.0.x (stack pointer handling bug)
> >> 
> >> Any chance of putting this sort of thing as #error detection
> >> in the compile so it auto-breaks? I seem to recall that's done
> >> for some versions of GCC already ...
> > 
> > And what arch is that for?  Adding a nice facility for per-arch (and
> > maybe global) compiler / binutils testing would be nice, if we're going
> > to go down that road..
> 
> Alan, would you consider something like (TOTALLY untested):
[snip]

So it's a global thing then?
 
> If you like it, I'll get it tested.
> 
> Probably some things are per-arch and some are global, at a guess.
> Currently we have:
[snip]

And then ppc32 does some binutils checks, not-in-C and before we let the
kernel get too far.  What I was proposing is we add something outside of
the direct kernel src (something in scripts?  Generic make magic?) to
verify that a compiler / binutils / whatever tool is a good version.
This is rather easy for binutils + obvious instruction problem (missing
/ incorrect operands), and for compiler versions, something to generate
a test-file and then see if it compiles.

-- 
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/