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=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham 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 0AB92C433F4 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2018 01:51:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8E412157C for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2018 01:51:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="ODKFIUfJ" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A8E412157C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726672AbeHYF2i (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Aug 2018 01:28:38 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:56976 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725740AbeHYF2h (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Aug 2018 01:28:37 -0400 Received: from devbox (NE2965lan1.rev.em-net.ne.jp [210.141.244.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AD09A21567; Sat, 25 Aug 2018 01:51:28 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1535161889; bh=sGfEm0YuEEDED5z3Myvjx8/NlGaCuTD2b7fe2mCqmr4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ODKFIUfJbbulM3ce8OAvyFQHHWsNR2Nn6hVxnuomSfhmBrBKkarNhgHo9z7SWh6sI f1BLwvBQCanHadarFYN2u7rIBa5rbCre+UHidipcJHRDYl/JgVaSdK8Bxl8/ORfIUO Skh0MlzujNCLw77gcoT8fmqNKNpa33jJeWMeO3vQ= Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 10:51:27 +0900 From: Masami Hiramatsu To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: linux-next: build warnings from the build of Linus' tree Message-Id: <20180825105127.7d178290162a186a7c768c60@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20180824224211.2934d7c0@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20180824133206.4218c2e5@canb.auug.org.au> <20180824172053.20fa197294f51496dcec5605@kernel.org> <20180824204756.e787765461975cd1e27502dc@kernel.org> <20180824224211.2934d7c0@canb.auug.org.au> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 22:42:11 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Masami, > > On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 20:47:56 +0900 Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > > > gcc-7.3.0 cross build ld shows below warnings. > > > > MODPOST vmlinux.o > > /opt/gcc-7.3.0-nolibc/powerpc64-linux/bin/powerpc64-linux-ld: warning: orphan section `.gnu.hash' from `linker stubs' being placed in section `.gnu.hash'. > > KSYM .tmp_kallsyms1.o > > /opt/gcc-7.3.0-nolibc/powerpc64-linux/bin/powerpc64-linux-ld: warning: orphan section `.gnu.hash' from `linker stubs' being placed in section `.gnu.hash'. > > KSYM .tmp_kallsyms2.o > > /opt/gcc-7.3.0-nolibc/powerpc64-linux/bin/powerpc64-linux-ld: warning: orphan section `.gnu.hash' from `linker stubs' being placed in section `.gnu.hash'. > > KSYM .tmp_kallsyms3.o > > LD vmlinux > > /opt/gcc-7.3.0-nolibc/powerpc64-linux/bin/powerpc64-linux-ld: warning: orphan section `.gnu.hash' from `linker stubs' being placed in section `.gnu.hash'. > > I reported those a while ago when I started using the native Debian gcc > on my Powerpc build box. > > > But it seems another warning, and I couldn't see your warnings. Could you tell me your gcc version? > > Currently, it is the Debian gcc 8.2.0, ld 2.31.1. Hmm, so I guess it might be related to newer gcc (8?). I need to check it on x86-64 too. Thank you, -- Masami Hiramatsu