[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171116165922.llrojrvomuihabrt@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 17:59:22 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Alex Matveev <alxmtvv@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim.kuvyrkov@...aro.org>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 18/18] arm64: select ARCH_SUPPORTS_LTO_CLANG
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 08:50:41AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > Ideally we'd get the toolchain people to commit to supporting the kernel
> > memory model along side the C11 one. That would help a ton.
>
> Does anyone from the kernel side participate in the C standardization process?
Yes, Paul McKenney and Will Deacon. Doesn't mean these two can still be
reconciled though. From what I understand C11 (and onwards) are
incompatible with the kernel model on a number of subtle points.
Not to mention that there's people in the C11 process that strongly
argue for stuff that would break every single multi-threaded program
written since the 70s, which would include pretty much all OS kernels.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists