On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 12:06:35 PST (-0800), Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
Well, it's still not a very *big* bump. With modern distros being at
7.3, and people testing pre-releases of gcc-8, something like gcc-4.5
is still pretty darn ancient.
...
2018-02-13 17:35 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann :
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 2:53 AM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 02/12/2018 05:41 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>>> 2018-02-13 8:48 GMT+09:00 Randy Dunlap :
On 02/12/2018 07:24 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:39 AM, Masahiro Yamada
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 01:10:34AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> 2018-02-13 0:46 GMT+09:00 Kees Cook :
> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Masahiro Yamada
> > wrote:
> >> Linus said:
> >>
> >>> But yes, I also reacted to your earlier " It can't silently rewrite it
> >>> to _REGULAR because the
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 2:53 AM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 02/12/2018 05:41 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>> 2018-02-13 8:48 GMT+09:00 Randy Dunlap :
>>> On 02/12/2018 07:24 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:39 AM, Masahiro Yamada
wrote:
>>>
>> (And in thinking about this,
On 02/12/2018 05:41 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> 2018-02-13 8:48 GMT+09:00 Randy Dunlap :
>> On 02/12/2018 07:24 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:39 AM, Masahiro Yamada
>>> wrote:
>>
> (And in thinking about this, does Kconfig know the true $CC in use?
> i.e. the configur
2018-02-13 8:48 GMT+09:00 Randy Dunlap :
> On 02/12/2018 07:24 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:39 AM, Masahiro Yamada
>> wrote:
>
(And in thinking about this, does Kconfig know the true $CC in use?
i.e. the configured cross compiler, etc?)
>>>
>>> I was thinking of remo
On 02/12/2018 07:24 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:39 AM, Masahiro Yamada
> wrote:
>>> (And in thinking about this, does Kconfig know the true $CC in use?
>>> i.e. the configured cross compiler, etc?)
>>
>> I was thinking of removing CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE.
>>
>> A user can dynami
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:36 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-02-12 at 09:33 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 08:56:31AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>> >> That would be bad: Android exclusively builds with clang.
>
On Mon, 2018-02-12 at 09:33 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 08:56:31AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> That would be bad: Android exclusively builds with clang.
> >
> > So implement asm-goto already, and do asm-cc-output whi
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 08:56:31AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>> That would be bad: Android exclusively builds with clang.
>
> So implement asm-goto already, and do asm-cc-output while you're at it.
Yup, I've already been asking for it. I'm ho
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 08:56:31AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> That would be bad: Android exclusively builds with clang.
So implement asm-goto already, and do asm-cc-output while you're at it.
The whole asm-goto/jump_label stuff really does make a measureable
difference in performance, and its bloo
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 04:19:22PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-02-12 at 09:26 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:13:44AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > > That actually sounds like we could just
> > >
> > > (a) make gcc 4.5 be the minimum required v
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:19 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-02-12 at 09:26 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:13:44AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> > That actually sounds like we could just
>> >
>> > (a) make gcc 4.5 be the minimum required version
>> >
>>
On Mon, 2018-02-12 at 09:26 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:13:44AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > That actually sounds like we could just
> >
> > (a) make gcc 4.5 be the minimum required version
> >
> > (b) actually error out if we find a bad compiler
>
> So the
2018-02-13 0:46 GMT+09:00 Kees Cook :
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Masahiro Yamada
> wrote:
>> Linus said:
>>
>>> But yes, I also reacted to your earlier " It can't silently rewrite it
>>> to _REGULAR because the compiler support for _STRONG regressed."
>>> Because it damn well can. If the c
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Masahiro Yamada
wrote:
> Linus said:
>
>> But yes, I also reacted to your earlier " It can't silently rewrite it
>> to _REGULAR because the compiler support for _STRONG regressed."
>> Because it damn well can. If the compiler doesn't support
>> -fstack-protector-st
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Masahiro Yamada
wrote:
> 2018-02-12 23:53 GMT+09:00 Ulf Magnusson :
>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Masahiro Yamada
>> wrote:
>>> 'syncconfig' in a more proper name
>>
>> Wonder if --update-config-files-for-build or something would be an
>> even better name.
>
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:39 AM, Masahiro Yamada
wrote:
> 2018-02-12 2:56 GMT+09:00 Kees Cook :
>> I think it would work to skip KBUILD_CPPFLAGS right up until it
>> didn't. Since we have the arch split, we can already add -m32 to the
>> 32-bit case, etc. However, I worry about interaction with ot
2018-02-12 23:53 GMT+09:00 Ulf Magnusson :
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Masahiro Yamada
> wrote:
>> 'syncconfig' in a more proper name
>
> Wonder if --update-config-files-for-build or something would be an
> even better name.
I want to use a name that ends with 'config' like any other confi
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Masahiro Yamada
wrote:
> 'syncconfig' in a more proper name
Wonder if --update-config-files-for-build or something would be an
even better name.
Kinda tough to compress it into something that adheres to *nix
terseness while making it somewhat clear what kind of s
2018-02-12 2:56 GMT+09:00 Kees Cook :
> I think it would work to skip KBUILD_CPPFLAGS right up until it
> didn't. Since we have the arch split, we can already add -m32 to the
> 32-bit case, etc. However, I worry about interaction with other
> selected build options. For example, while retpoline do
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Masahiro Yamada
wrote:
> 2018-02-12 23:21 GMT+09:00 Masahiro Yamada :
>> 2018-02-12 21:54 GMT+09:00 Ulf Magnusson :
>>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 09:42:09PM +0100, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 9:29 PM, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11,
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Masahiro Yamada
wrote:
> 2018-02-12 21:54 GMT+09:00 Ulf Magnusson :
>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 09:42:09PM +0100, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
>>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 9:29 PM, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
>>> > On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> >> Another
2018-02-12 23:21 GMT+09:00 Masahiro Yamada :
> 2018-02-12 21:54 GMT+09:00 Ulf Magnusson :
>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 09:42:09PM +0100, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
>>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 9:29 PM, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
>>> > On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> >> Another case I menti
2018-02-12 21:54 GMT+09:00 Ulf Magnusson :
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 09:42:09PM +0100, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 9:29 PM, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
>> > On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> >> Another case I mentioned before that I just want to make sure we don't
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Masahiro Yamada
wrote:
> 2018-02-12 20:44 GMT+09:00 Ulf Magnusson :
>
>>>
>>> I think Linus's comment was dismissed here.
>>>
>>>
>>> Linus said:
>>>
But yes, I also reacted to your earlier " It can't silently rewrite it
to _REGULAR because the compiler s
2018-02-12 20:44 GMT+09:00 Ulf Magnusson :
>>
>> I think Linus's comment was dismissed here.
>>
>>
>> Linus said:
>>
>>> But yes, I also reacted to your earlier " It can't silently rewrite it
>>> to _REGULAR because the compiler support for _STRONG regressed."
>>> Because it damn well can. If the
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 09:42:09PM +0100, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 9:29 PM, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> Another case I mentioned before that I just want to make sure we don't
> >> reintroduce the problem of getting "stuck"
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:27:25AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:13:44AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > > That actually sounds like we could just
> > >
> > > (a) make gcc 4.5 be the minimum required version
> >
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:44 AM, Masahiro Yamada
> wrote:
>> 2018-02-11 19:34 GMT+09:00 Ulf Magnusson :
>>> Looks to me like there's a few unrelated issues here:
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. The stack protector support test scripts
>>>
>>> Worthwhile IM
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:44 AM, Masahiro Yamada
wrote:
> 2018-02-11 19:34 GMT+09:00 Ulf Magnusson :
>> Looks to me like there's a few unrelated issues here:
>>
>>
>> 1. The stack protector support test scripts
>>
>> Worthwhile IMO if they (*in practice*) prevent hard-to-debug build errors or
>>
2018-02-11 19:34 GMT+09:00 Ulf Magnusson :
> Looks to me like there's a few unrelated issues here:
>
>
> 1. The stack protector support test scripts
>
> Worthwhile IMO if they (*in practice*) prevent hard-to-debug build errors or a
> subtly broken kernel from being built.
>
> A few questions:
>
>
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:50 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>
>>> In my tests last year, I identified gcc-4.6 as a nice minimum level, IIRC
>>> gcc-4.5 was unable to build some of the newer
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:13:44AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > That actually sounds like we could just
> >
> > (a) make gcc 4.5 be the minimum required version
> >
> > (b) actually error out if we find a bad compiler
>
> So the unofficial p
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:13:44AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> That actually sounds like we could just
>
> (a) make gcc 4.5 be the minimum required version
>
> (b) actually error out if we find a bad compiler
So the unofficial plan was to enforce asm-goto and -fentry support by
hard failur
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:10 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Linus Torvalds
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, it's still not a very *big* bump. With modern distros being at
>>> 7.3, and people testing pre-releases of
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>
>> In my tests last year, I identified gcc-4.6 as a nice minimum level, IIRC
>> gcc-4.5 was unable to build some of the newer ARM targets.
>
> But yes, if Linus wants 4.5 over 4.3, I would
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:05 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> Old? That's not the case. The check for -fno-stack-protector will
>>> likely be needed forever, as some distro compilers enable
>>>
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> 3. Whether to implement CC_STACKPROTECTOR_AUTO in Kconfig or the Makefiles
>>
>> I'd just go with whatever is simplest here. I don't find the Kconfig version
>> too bad, but I'm already very familiar with Kconfig, so it's harder for me to
>> tel
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Linus Torvalds
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, it's still not a very *big* bump. With modern distros being at
>>> 7.3, and people testing pre-releases of
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> This made akpm and Arnd very very grumpy as it regressed their builds.
>> That's why I had to deal with the condition very carefully for _AUTO.
>
> Well, Arnd build new cross-tools last
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>>
>> Well, it's still not a very *big* bump. With modern distros being at
>> 7.3, and people testing pre-releases of gcc-8, something like gcc-4.5
>> is still pretty darn ancient.
>
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> Old? That's not the case. The check for -fno-stack-protector will
>> likely be needed forever, as some distro compilers enable
>> stack-protector by default. So when someone wants to expl
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 9:29 PM, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> Another case I mentioned before that I just want to make sure we don't
>> reintroduce the problem of getting "stuck" with a bad .config file.
>> While adding _STRONG support, I discovered
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> Another case I mentioned before that I just want to make sure we don't
> reintroduce the problem of getting "stuck" with a bad .config file.
> While adding _STRONG support, I discovered the two-phase Kconfig
> resolution that happens during the b
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> Well, it's still not a very *big* bump. With modern distros being at
> 7.3, and people testing pre-releases of gcc-8, something like gcc-4.5
> is still pretty darn ancient.
... it's worth noting that our _documentation_ may claim that gc
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> (a) make gcc 4.5 be the minimum required version
>
> I love bumping minimum for so many reason more than just stack protector. :)
Well, it's still not a very *big* bump. With modern distros being at
7.3, and people testing pre-releases of
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> That actually sounds like we could just
>
> (a) make gcc 4.5 be the minimum required version
>
> (b) actually error out if we find a bad compiler
Just to explain why that's different from what we do not (apart from
the "error out" thin
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>>> - How common are those broken compilers?
>>
>> I *thought* it was rare (i.e. gcc 4.2) but while working on ..._AUTO I
>> found breakage in akpm's 4.4 gcc, and all of Arnd's gccs
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> Old? That's not the case. The check for -fno-stack-protector will
> likely be needed forever, as some distro compilers enable
> stack-protector by default. So when someone wants to explicitly build
> without stack-protector (or if the compiler's
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
>> - How common are those broken compilers?
>
> I *thought* it was rare (i.e. gcc 4.2) but while working on ..._AUTO I
> found breakage in akpm's 4.4 gcc, and all of Arnd's gccs due to some
> very strange misconfiguration between the gcc buil
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 2:34 AM, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> Looks to me like there's a few unrelated issues here:
>
>
> 1. The stack protector support test scripts
>
> Worthwhile IMO if they (*in practice*) prevent hard-to-debug build errors or a
> subtly broken kernel from being built.
>
> A few ques
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 11:28 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 8:46 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>>
>> Argh. I wanted to get rid of all that entirely, and simplify this all.
>> The mentioned script (and bugzilla) was from 2006, I assumed this was
>> all historical.
>>
>> But if
Looks to me like there's a few unrelated issues here:
1. The stack protector support test scripts
Worthwhile IMO if they (*in practice*) prevent hard-to-debug build errors or a
subtly broken kernel from being built.
A few questions:
- How do things fail with a broken stack protector implem
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 8:46 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> Argh. I wanted to get rid of all that entirely, and simplify this all.
> The mentioned script (and bugzilla) was from 2006, I assumed this was
> all historical.
>
> But if it has broken again since, I guess we need to have a silly script.
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 8:13 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> It's been there since the very beginning when Arjan added it to
> validate that the compiler actually produces a stack protector when
> you give it -fstack-protector. Older gccs broke this entirely, more
> recent misconfigurations (as seen with
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> So, if this could do something like this:
>>
>> config CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG
>> bool
>> option
>> shell="scripts/gcc-${ARCH}_${BITS}-ha
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 10:05:12AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 02/10/2018 12:55 AM, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> > How many compilers don't support -fno-stack-protector by the way?
> >
> > config CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG
> > bool
> > option shell="$CC -Werror -fstack-
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> So, if this could do something like this:
>
> config CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG
> bool
> option
> shell="scripts/gcc-${ARCH}_${BITS}-has-stack-protector.sh $CC
> $KBUILD_CPPFLAGS"
Guys, this is not th
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 12:55 AM, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> Here's a complete updated example, with some stuff from Masahiro added.
>
> Turns out warnings inside choices get cut off easily in menuconfig, so I
> went with just a single warning instead (which should be enough anyway).
>
> With this ver
On 02/10/2018 12:55 AM, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> How many compilers don't support -fno-stack-protector by the way?
>
> config CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG
> bool
> option shell="$CC -Werror -fstack-protector-strong -c -x c
> /dev/null"
>
> config CC_HA
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 09:55:19AM +0100, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 09:05:56AM +0100, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 08:49:24AM +0100, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 04:12:13PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > > 2018-02-10 14:48 GMT+09:0
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 09:05:56AM +0100, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 08:49:24AM +0100, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 04:12:13PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > 2018-02-10 14:48 GMT+09:00 Ulf Magnusson :
> > > > On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 12:46:54PM -0800, Kee
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 08:49:24AM +0100, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 04:12:13PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > 2018-02-10 14:48 GMT+09:00 Ulf Magnusson :
> > > On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 12:46:54PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 4:46 AM, Ulf Magnusson
>
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 04:12:13PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> 2018-02-10 14:48 GMT+09:00 Ulf Magnusson :
> > On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 12:46:54PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 4:46 AM, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> >> > One thing that makes Kconfig confusing (though it works well
2018-02-10 14:48 GMT+09:00 Ulf Magnusson :
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 12:46:54PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 4:46 AM, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
>> > One thing that makes Kconfig confusing (though it works well enough in
>> > practice) is that .config files both record user selectio
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 12:46:54PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 4:46 AM, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> > One thing that makes Kconfig confusing (though it works well enough in
> > practice) is that .config files both record user selections (the saved
> > configuration) and serve as a
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 4:46 AM, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> One thing that makes Kconfig confusing (though it works well enough in
> practice) is that .config files both record user selections (the saved
> configuration) and serve as a configuration output format for make.
>
> It becomes easier to thin
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 06:19:19PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> 2018-02-09 14:30 GMT+09:00 Ulf Magnusson :
> > On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 01:19:09AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> >> This works with bool, int, hex, string types.
> >>
> >> For bool, the symbol is set to 'y' or 'n' depending on the
2018-02-09 14:30 GMT+09:00 Ulf Magnusson :
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 01:19:09AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>> This works with bool, int, hex, string types.
>>
>> For bool, the symbol is set to 'y' or 'n' depending on the exit value
>> of the command.
>>
>> For int, hex, string, the symbol is set
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 01:19:09AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> This works with bool, int, hex, string types.
>
> For bool, the symbol is set to 'y' or 'n' depending on the exit value
> of the command.
>
> For int, hex, string, the symbol is set to the value to the stdout
> of the command. (on
This works with bool, int, hex, string types.
For bool, the symbol is set to 'y' or 'n' depending on the exit value
of the command.
For int, hex, string, the symbol is set to the value to the stdout
of the command. (only the first line of the stdout)
The following shows how to write this and how
72 matches
Mail list logo
