[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwbdc5172q5fErgqhUmt48ZYQCrc0ftN+Cn6O-xQ8Tfrg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2018 13:28:18 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>, joe@....org,
daniel.santos@...ox.com, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>,
Sparse Mailing-list <linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
gbiv@...gle.com, James Y Knight <jyknight@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] compiler.h: give up __compiletime_assert_fallback()
On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 1:25 PM Nick Desaulniers
<ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> + gbiv who wrote this cool paste (showing alternatives to
> _Static_assert, which is supported by both compilers in -std=gnu89,
> but not until gcc 4.6): https://godbolt.org/g/DuLsxu
>
> I can't help but think that BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG should use
> _Static_assert, then have fallbacks for gcc < 4.6.
Well, it turns out that we effectively stopped supporting gcc < 4.6
during this merge window for other reasons, so..
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists