[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 23:04:46 +0000
From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
James Y Knight <jyknight@...gle.com>,
Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@...gle.com>,
Stephen Hines <srhines@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>, groeck@...omium.org,
Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/build changes for v4.17
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:17 PM Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org> wrote:
> Even with clang having known issues it would be preferable not to
> break kernel builds with clang, if this doesn't place a signifcant
> burden on the kernel. I'm not sure it is strictly necessary to 'wait'
> for clang to enforce asm-goto for gcc (and thus the vast majority of
> builds), which is the primary goal of your patch. Couldn't we just
> exclude clang for now from raising the error when lack of asm-goto
> support is detected?
In particular, I worry that this now stalls adding clang support to 0-day,
since now this will fail outright to compile.
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists