[cc list trimmed] on 16/11/2012 12:43 Erik Cederstrand said the following: > Den 16/11/2012 kl. 11.18 skrev Andriy Gapon <avg_at_freebsd.org>: > >> This is starting to turn into a bikeshed, but anyway... >> >> on 16/11/2012 12:00 Daniel Braniss said the following: >>> the question as to what compiler was used to compile the kernel is a bit >>> of an oxymoron, since the kernel is made up of many different modules, >>> which get compiled either by different compilers, or different compiler >>> flags. >> >> The canonical way to compile a kernel is to use buildkernel and compile >> modules along with the kernel. Other configurations are supported too, of >> course. >> >>> since the compiler does 'sign' the modules it compiles (and clang >>> will/should do it soon: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=7292) some >>> tool like file(1) could be modified to provide it, or config -x (8) ... >> >> The key word in your note about clang is 'soon' as in 'not yet'. >> >> Besides, when I see a bug report with a dmesg *I* want to immediately know >> what compiler was used there. > > But wouldn't you want to know the compiler flags, too? And the kernel config > file? src.conf? Local patches? To solve a bug, in general you would want > sufficient information to recreate the environment locally. Compiler version > is not enough. It depends. OK? > So either you have all information in every binary, because they might have > been built outside a buildworld, or you have the general buildworld / > buildkernel configuration in a central place and expect users to supply > information about whatever non-standard setup they did. -- Andriy GaponReceived on Fri Nov 16 2012 - 09:57:32 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:32 UTC