[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56A17033.4090709@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:56:35 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Michael Brown <mcb30@...e.org>
Cc: Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@...il.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>, qiuxishi@...wei.com,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
joro@...tes.org, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, aryabinin@...tuozzo.com,
Michael Matz <matz@...e.de>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>,
andreyknvl@...gle.com, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Valentin Rothberg <valentinrothberg@...il.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, long.wanglong@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC v1 0/8] x86/init: Linux linker tables
On 01/21/16 14:25, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> <konrad.wilk@...cle.com> wrote:
>>> Sure, do we know if that ICC compatible? Do we care? There are a
>>> series of ICC hacks put in place on ipxe's original solution which
>>> I've folded in, it seems that works but if we care about ICC those
>>> folks should perhaps help review as well.
>>
>> I didn't know the kernel could even be compiled with ICC? Thought
>> only GCC worked?
>
> I'm happy with that, just wanted to make sure I raise the flag concern
> given the icc hacks on the linker tables.
>
>> Anyhow - it may be that those fixes were for quite old ICC versions.
>> Does the latest one manifest these oddities?
>
> I am not sure, I yield to Michael as the author of the original ICC
> compatibility pieces. If we don't care about ICC let me know and I'll
> just drop the stuff. In lack of such statements I'll just keep the
> work arounds in place, but I'm more than trilled to drop it.
>
In general we let the ICC and Clang/LLVM teams communicate with out a
post facto. We can't just guess what their requirements are, especially
since they are likely to change between revisions.
-hpa
Powered by blists - more mailing lists