Re: [PATCH, RFC] byteorder: sanity check toolchain vs kernel endianess
From: Arnd Bergmann
Date: Wed May 15 2019 - 02:55:07 EST
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 2:04 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 01:50:19PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > > We did have some bugs in the past (~1-2 y/ago) but AFAIK they are all
> > > fixed now. These days I build most of my kernels with a bi-endian 64-bit
> > > toolchain, and switching endian without running `make clean` also works.
> > For the record, yes, it turn out to be a problem in our code (a latent
> > bug). We actually used host (x86) gcc to build as-if ppc code that can
> > run on the host, so it defined neither LE no BE macros. It just
> > happened to work in the past :)
> So Nick was right and these checks actually are useful..
Yes, definitely. I wonder if we should also bring back the word size check
from include/asm-generic/bitsperlong.h, which was disabled right
after I originally added that.