From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11 v3] enable "make ARCH=x86"
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 12:35:01 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <473615F5.5090908@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071110084447.GA18780@linux-sh.org>
Paul Mundt wrote:
> Indeed, that's what I was intending on keeping around as a convention,
> and simply overloading SRCARCH for the sh64 case. i386/x86_64 potentially
> has the same issue though, and if the intent is to have a single ARCH for
> both of them, I don't see how that would possibly work without
> sacrificing randconfig.. unless the intended x86 convention is that one
> compiler will happily handle both i386 and x86_64 without any difficulty?
Well, that *is* the normal thing on x86.
HOWEVER, I think the right thing for allyesconfig, allmodconfig,
randconfig, etc. is to be able to override specific variables. Right
now, one has to use indirection via a file, which is a bit clumsy; it
would be better if one could do "make allyesconfig CONFIG_X86_64=y" or
somesuch.
In fact, we should be able to get rid of ARCH entirely; CONFIG_ options
have the huge advantage that they're saved in a file, and you don't have
to type them on every make run. The only option that I can't see us
getting rid of easily is HOSTCC, since it is used before config is run,
but probably something clever can be done there, too.
-hpa
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-10 20:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-09 23:08 [PATCH 0/11 v3] enable "make ARCH=x86" Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 01/11] x86: unification of cfufreq/Kconfig Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 02/11] x86: start unification of arch/x86/Kconfig.* Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 03/11] x86: arch/x86/Kconfig.cpu unification Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 04/11] x86: add X86_32 dependency to i386 specific symbols in Kconfig.i386 Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 05/11] x86: add X86_64 dependency to x86_64 specific symbols in Kconfig.x86_64 Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 06/11] x86: copy x86_64 specific Kconfig symbols to Kconfig.i386 Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 07/11] x86: move all simple arch settings to Kconfig Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 08/11] x86: move the rest of the menu's " Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 09/11] x86: enable "make ARCH=x86" Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 10/11] x86: drop backward compatibility symlinks to i386/boot and x86_64/boot Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-09 23:20 ` [PATCH 11/11] kbuild: sanity check the specified arch Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-10 3:23 ` [PATCH 0/11 v3] enable "make ARCH=x86" Jeff Garzik
2007-11-10 3:37 ` Randy Dunlap
2007-11-10 3:50 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-11-10 4:05 ` Brian Gerst
2007-11-10 4:12 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-11-14 20:13 ` Roman Zippel
2007-11-10 7:54 ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-10 5:26 ` Nick Piggin
2007-11-10 8:21 ` Paul Mundt
2007-11-10 8:24 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-11-10 8:44 ` Paul Mundt
2007-11-10 20:35 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2007-11-10 20:46 ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-10 21:24 ` Theodore Tso
2007-11-10 9:39 ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-11-10 10:32 ` david
2007-11-10 9:21 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-11-10 9:26 ` Paul Mundt
2007-11-10 8:23 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-11-10 10:13 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-11-10 15:53 ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-11-12 11:59 ` Frans Pop
[not found] <9nL9f-2n8-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <9nPcU-bm-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <9nTqh-6Cw-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <9nTTh-7w5-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <9nTTh-7w5-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <9nUcv-7UA-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <9o5hA-b8-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <9o640-1rJ-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
2007-11-11 21:03 ` Bodo Eggert
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=473615F5.5090908@zytor.com \
--to=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jeff@garzik.org \
--cc=lethal@linux-sh.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=sam@ravnborg.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox