Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756983Ab1CNTYt (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:24:49 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:40630 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753494Ab1CNTYs (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:24:48 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=dquaJDitHqzHCdqWSoZ6IgapSuTzW/4TaRYx9N9k4W8= c=1 sm=0 a=JmPYChc5JtYA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:17 a=3vXW2efjfCzugMQovxwA:9 a=zh-d5kGcDP9u90gcqBcWE3RN1N0A:4 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 67.242.120.143 Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:24:45 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Jan Beulich , sedat.dilek@gmail.com, Alan Modra , Ingo Molnar , "H.J. Lu" , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , binutils , LKML Subject: Re: PATCH: Add --size-check=[error|warning] Message-ID: <20110314192445.GD20259@home.goodmis.org> References: <4D7E095802000078000363D5@vpn.id2.novell.com> <4D7E4338.1060302@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D7E4338.1060302@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1493 Lines: 37 On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 09:32:56AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 03/14/2011 04:26 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > Making the kernel build system check for certain newly introduced > > gas options would again require changes to the kernel sources, > > which is precisely what is impossible to do for past kernel releases > > (and bisection in particular). > > > > But something like "make CC='gcc -Wa,--size-check=warning'" should work, > I believe (tweaking may be required, but that's the idea). Passing an > option to the assembler is a helluva lot easier than redirecting to a > different assembler. > > -hpa > Even if the above does work, how do we go about educating users doing bisects with latest binutils? This is a very common practice among kernel developers with users that hit bugs. And right now there's just a handful of people that know of this work-around. It will become a huge burden to us and our users (which is everyone using Linux), if we do not understand the reason a build breaks when doing a bisect, just because some "bug" in asm which binutils use to work with now errors on. If it was a bug in asm, but binutils can cope with it, then it should be a warning. If binutils can't cope, then error. -- Steve -- 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/