[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170621071858.74cg3vg5wbhpdsht@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 09:18:58 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
Cc: hpa@...or.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Davidson <md@...gle.com>,
Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Stephen Hines <srhines@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Bernhard.Rosenkranzer@...aro.org,
Peter Foley <pefoley2@...oley.com>,
Behan Webster <behanw@...verseincode.com>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] x86/build: Specify stack alignment for clang
* Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org> wrote:
> El Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:20:54AM +0200 Ingo Molnar ha dit:
>
> >
> > * Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Ingo didn't like the duplication and suggested the use of a variable, which
> > > kinda implies a check for the compiler name.
> >
> > I don't think it implies that: why cannot cc_stack_align_opt probe for the
> > compiler option and use whichever is available, without hard-coding the compiler
> > name?
>
> We could do this:
>
> ifneq ($(call __cc-option, $(CC), -mno-sse, -mpreferred-stack-boundary=3,),)
> cc_stack_align_opt := -mpreferred-stack-boundary
> endif
> ifneq ($(call cc-option, -mstack-alignment=3,),)
> cc_stack_align_opt := -mstack-alignment
> endif
The principle Looks good to me - but I'd make the second probing an 'else' branch,
i.e. probe for a suitable compiler option until we find one. That would also not
burden the GCC build with probing for different compiler options.
Please also add a comment in the code that explains that the first option is a GCC
option and the second one is a Clang-ism.
> Since this solution also won't win a beauty price please let me know
> if it is acceptable before respinning the patch or if you have other
> suggestions.
This one already looks a lot cleaner to me than any of the previous ones.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists