Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762981AbXHWMWY (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:22:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757730AbXHWMWR (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:22:17 -0400 Received: from ns1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:45315 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757359AbXHWMWQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:22:16 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:22:15 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Andy Whitcroft Cc: Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sam Ravnborg , Andi Kleen Subject: Re: 2.6.23-rc3-mm1 Message-ID: <20070823122215.GS8058@bingen.suse.de> References: <20070822020648.5ea3a612.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <46CC6FB2.1010801@csn.ul.ie> <20070822111029.46db0ab7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070823120318.GA7506@shadowen.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070823120318.GA7506@shadowen.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1637 Lines: 41 On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 01:03:18PM +0100, Andy Whitcroft wrote: > It seems that this is a problem caused by the way we check for > compiler options in x86_64. Each compiler flag is checked for > individually and if available added to cflags-y, later that is > added to CFLAGS. However, this means that each flag is checked > in total isolation. On x86_64 (on this compiler at least) the > -mpreferred-stack-boundary and -m{32,64} flags are actually mutually > dependant, the alignment constraints vary based on the word size. > This leads to the compile failure: > > # gcc -mpreferred-stack-boundary=3 -S -xc /dev/null -o FOO > # echo $? > 0 > # gcc -m64 -mpreferred-stack-boundary=3 -S -xc /dev/null -o FOO > /dev/null:1: error: -mpreferred-stack-boundary=3 is not between 4 and 12 > # echo $? > 1 > > In the main Makefile we always add each flag directly to CFLAGS > which means we check them all in combination, perhaps this is > prudent here also? Either way I suspect that changing the -m64 > check to add itself directly to CFLAGS will fix this us. Ok that makes sense. Most people don't see it because they don't need -m64. I fixed it up with ftp://ftp.firstfloor.org/pub/ak/x86_64/quilt/patches/cflags-probe and then ftp://ftp.firstfloor.org/pub/ak/x86_64/quilt/patches/less-stack-alignment (replacement for the mm patch) Can you test? -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/