On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 02:38:43PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Josh, > > On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 21:20:58 -0600 Josh Poimboeuf <jpoim...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 01:43:14PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > > I was wondering if this would be more appropriate in scripts/objtool > > > since it is used during the building of the kernel. Or does it have a > > > wider use? > > > > Yeah, it was actually in the scripts/ dir in earlier revisions of the > > patch set, for that very reason. However, Ingo pointed out that it > > could be useful beyond the kernel, so we graduated it to a "tool". > > > > > > > > We have HOSTCC with its associated HOSTCFLAGS etc ... I am not sure if > > > that is more appropriate (but it does take care of people using clang). > > > > The "tools" are almost completely separate from the rest of the kernel. > > They have their own scaled-down version of kbuild, which doesn't have > > HOSTCC. > > > > But yeah, we might eventually need to copy some of the host compilation > > infrastructure from scripts/Makefile.host over to the tools/ side. > > That all sounds sane, thanks. > > I did not add this to linux-next today, but may tomorrow if people > think it is sensible to do so (for testing on a powerpcle host). If I > do, I will just back out to the previous patch if it all goes south (so > it won't impact on the rest of the tip tree's testing).
Sounds good, thanks! FWIW, I did test it on a ppc64le host with an x86 cross-compiler and it worked fine (but more testing is certainly welcome). -- Josh
