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

[Sam Edwards]

On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 7:47 AM Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> 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).

Hi Tom,

Well... that's "hard" but not "really hard" for me, so I think what
I'll pitch is this: let's let Ilias (and others if so inclined) have a
week to pick through the series (thanks Ilias!) and offer feedback;
I'll resend any patches that get no/positive feedback as a v2 series
(where the "just skip any patch deemed objectionable" option will
still apply), and any patches that need reworking can be part of my
upcoming LLVM support series. Would that work?

Cheers,
Sam

>
> --
> Tom