[PATCH 00/17] Various toolchain compatibility fixes/improvements

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 07:46:56PM -0800, Sam Edwards wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 9:55 PM Sam Edwards <cfsworks at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Long time no see, U-Boot folks!
> >
> > This patchset consists of various bug fixes and correctness improvements that
> > I discovered while attempting to add first-class LLVM support to the build
> > system. These patches are NOT related to LLVM support directly; rather, they
> > address existing issues that should be resolved regardless of future changes.
> > For the most part, the patches are mutually independent and can be reviewed and
> > applied separately. If any patch is not suitable for merging now, feel free to
> > skip it: I will incorporate feedback and revisit those changes as part of the
> > upcoming LLVM support patchset. I'd like this patchset to be evaluated on its
> > own merits, based on the current state of the code, without consideration for
> > future LLVM support.
> >
> > Note that the issues addressed in this patchset do not occur when U-Boot is
> > built using the GCC/GNU toolchain. These bugs seem to be specific to builds
> > using other toolchains, like LLVM, and do not appear to affect users relying on
> > GCC/GNU. Therefore, I see no need to rush these changes into the stable branch.
> >
> > Again, these patches are mostly independent/reorderable...
> > ...except that: "arm: Add aligned-memory aliases to eabi_compat"
> > ...depends on: "arm: Add __aeabi_memclr in eabi_compat"
> >
> > Warm regards,
> > Sam
> 
> Hi Tom,
> 
> I noticed that all patches in this series have been marked 'Changes
> Requested' on Patchwork. While some patches do need changes, this
> series was intended as a set of independent submissions: each patch
> can be accepted, rejected, or reordered without affecting the others.
> Would it be possible to reconsider the remaining patches for review
> without resending the series?
> 
> I'd like to withdraw the following patches:
> 
> - [06/17] arm: Use -mstrict-align when the MMU is off (Incorrect approach)
> - [11/17] makefile: Fix symbol typo in binary_size_check (Will follow
> Simon's suggestion for a more comprehensive fix across architectures
> in a future submission)
> 
> The feedback I've received so far was mostly requests for
> clarification, which I believe I've addressed in my replies. Please
> let me know if anything remains unclear or if further adjustments are
> needed.
> 
> Thank you so much for your time!

It's *really* hard to track parts of a series in that way. If they
aren't intended to be applied all in one go, please post them
individually as v2s. The clarifications likely mean a bit more rewording
of the commit messages are in order.

If it's really hard on your end to resend things, I can go and poke
through the series (once Ilias has had time to do the reviews I see he
promised).

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20250306/f722f7a6/attachment.sig>