From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756182Ab2BCV31 (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Feb 2012 16:29:27 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:59707 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753032Ab2BCV3Z (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Feb 2012 16:29:25 -0500 Message-ID: <4F2C51A5.1040800@zytor.com> Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:29:09 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org" CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Ingo Molnar Subject: Kconfig and toolchain dependencies X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Right now, we don't have a good way to encode toolchain dependencies in Kconfig. This makes it hard to add optional features which depend on newer toolchain features. If we just add them, then it breaks all*config and randconfig on platforms with the older toolchains unless the user manually adds exclusion rules. This is bad for testing. It seems relatively straightforward to do if we were to manifest some CONFIG_ variables based on the target toolchain, e.g. CONFIG_GCC=0x040601 ... and perhaps do other tests. I suspect we would run the tests less frequently than what we do right now with the tests embedded in the Makefile. Does anyone have a feel for if this would be a good addition, and if so where it best fits into the chain? -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.