linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel: add support for gcc 5

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 05 Sep 2014 06:08:53 +0200
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Cc:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@....fi>, akpm@...uxfoundation.org,
	mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: add support for gcc 5

On Do, 2014-09-04 at 23:37 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 09/04/2014 07:47 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 00:43 +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> >> > Most statements are already depending on GCC_VERSION, maybe we can just
> >> > unify all gcc specific headers to one, still trying to keep the file
> >> > organized? ;)
> > Maybe something like:
> > 
> > gnu development of gcc will be more frequent and the use of
> > compiler-gcc<major>.h likely will not be convenient anymore.
> > 
> > Integrate the individual compiler-gcc<major>.h files into
> > compiler-gcc.h.
> 
> Please no. We have a similar file we maintain in our team that's supposed to
> do something very similar for kernel versions. It goes all the way back to
> 2.6.9 and it's a *horrible* mess.
> 
> This is how compiler-gcc.h will end up looking in a while.

Something along these lines? We can make '4' a macro describing it
references the latest possible compiler-gccX.h file.

--- a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
+++ b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
@@ -103,7 +103,12 @@
 #define __gcc_header(x) #x
 #define _gcc_header(x) __gcc_header(linux/compiler-gcc##x.h)
 #define gcc_header(x) _gcc_header(x)
+
+#if __GNUC__ > 4
+#include gcc_header(4)
+#else
 #include gcc_header(__GNUC__)
+#endif
 
 #if !defined(__noclone)
 #define __noclone      /* not needed */


I still think we should start chaining newer gcc header files to
deduplicate the content. What do you think?

Bye,
Hannes


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/