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  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:   Tue, 6 Dec 2016 10:07:51 +0800
From:   "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@...wei.com>
To:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
CC:     <ast@...com>, <lizefan@...wei.com>, <hekuang@...wei.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <pi3orama@....com>, <joe@....org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        <acme@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/30] perf clang: Add builtin clang support ant test
 case



On 2016/12/6 5:48, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 07:02:48PM -0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
>> Em Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 08:51:01AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov escreveu:
>>> yeah. it's kinda high. I'm guessing rpm llvm libs are in debug mode.
>>> Try llvm-config --build-mode --assertion-mode
>>> it should be Release OFF
>> Probably this was with 3.9 and built from git, quite a while ago, now I
>> removed it from /usr/local/ and installed what is in f25, but I fear it
>> will be insufficient, does 3.8 cuts it for what we're testing? Humm, it
>> looks like it will:
>>
>> [root@...et ~]# llc --version
>> LLVM (http://llvm.org/):
>>    LLVM version 3.8.0
>>
>> But I'm now running the container based tests to send a pull req, will
>> check later, after that.
> Not really, Wang, we need to update that feature detection test to state what
> is the minimum required LLVM/clang version, one that has those functions,
> which, unfortunately, isn't the one in the latest fedora, fedora 25:

I'll set the minimum required LLVM version to 3.9, and report
warning when LLVM is too old. However, since LLVM interface is
keep changing, finally we will have problem if we want to support
2 or 3 different clang/LLVM. We should keep moving minimum
requirement LLVM version if we don't want to see '#ifdef's
spread in our code.

Thank you.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists