[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171109165143.GD10540@samitolvanen.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 08:51:43 -0800
From: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
To: Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim.kuvyrkov@...aro.org>
Cc: Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Alex Matveev <alxmtvv@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/15] arm64: fix mrs_s/msr_s macros for clang LTO
On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 07:48:06AM +0300, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> Regarding CONFIG_* options, I would expect most of the configuration
> changes to be equally valid for both GCC's and Clang's LTO support.
> Sami, I don't think it's fair to ask you to support both Clang and GCC in
> your patchset, but, where changes are obviously toolchain-agnostic, could
> you use CONFIG_LTO? And use CONFIG_LTO_CLANG for Clang-specific parts?
Sure, using CONFIG_LTO for common code and CONFIG_LTO_CLANG for clang-
specific parts sounds good.
Sami
Powered by blists - more mailing lists