on 16/11/2012 12:54 Daniel Braniss said the following: >> >> 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 > > this does not guarantee uniformity, just look at the output it produces and > you will see > different compilers/assemblers/scripts/flags Different flags specified in the build infrastructure are OK. >> 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'. > Dimitry wrote that he will handle it :-) Right. 'will' is not 'did'. >> >> Besides, when I see a bug report with a dmesg *I* want to immediately know what >> compiler was used there. > today it's clang vs. gcc -- transition time --, but again it's only part of > the story, > and soon it will only be noise. Different kernel toolchains are here to stay. And it's not just clang vs gcc, but also different toolchains for embedded world, etc. -- Andriy GaponReceived on Fri Nov 16 2012 - 09:59:30 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:32 UTC