[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdnuKda7paw=GZS5JG-0pGn4-+cWr68m4R+Sd6-=48Uy9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 10:41:22 -0700
From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To: marc.zyngier@....com
Cc: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>, christoffer.dall@....com,
Takahiro Akashi <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: kvm: use -fno-jump-tables with clang
+ Andrey (who reported testing this patch in
https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/11)
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:40 AM Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:30 AM Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
wrote:
> > I'm going to ask the question I've asked before when this patch cropped
> > up (must be the 4th time now):
> > Is it guaranteed that this is the only case where LLVM/clang is going to
> > generate absolute addresses instead of using relative addressing?
> It seems like if there's requirements that only relative addressing be
> used, then the compiler should be told explicitly about this restriction,
> no?
> --
> Thanks,
> ~Nick Desaulniers
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists