[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdm+BwvDxAw-A_1v5xO2EjDff1axAttHVz5QnBSxSbKo=g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 11:31:56 -0700
From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To: asmadeus@...ewreck.org
Cc: joe@...ches.com, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, dwmw@...zon.co.uk,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] compiler-gcc: get back Clang build
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 9:32 PM Dominique Martinet
<asmadeus@...ewreck.org> wrote:
>
> Joe Perches wrote on Tue, Aug 21, 2018:
> > On Wed, 2018-08-22 at 06:16 +0200, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> > > I think that could work, but at the point making a separate
> > > compiler-common.h and not including compiler-gcc.h for clang sounds
> > > better to me... More importantly here, either solution sound complex
> > > enough to require more than a few days and proper testing for all archs
> > > etc when compared to the partial revert we have here.
> >
> > The immediate need for a partial revert seems unnecessary as
> > clang hasn't really worked for a couple releases now.
>
> Sorry for repeating myself, clang is used by bcc for compiling BPF
> programs (e.g. bpf_module_create_c_from_string() or any similar function
> will use the clang libs to compile the bpf program with linux headers),
> and this has always been working because it's not using our makefiles.
>
> This broke today in master and I only joined this thread after looking
> at why the build started failing today and noticing this patch, it
> definitely hasn't been broken for two releases, or I wouldn't be here
> with this timing :)
>
>
> > The separate compiler file changes are much more sensible,
> > even if it takes a few days.
>
> A few days are fine, but I think some form of fix in 4.19-rc1 would be
> good.
>
> I'll stop taking your time now, but I think you are/were underestimating
> how many people use clang with the linux kernel headers indirectly.
> BPF is a well-used tool :)
Hi Dominique,
I'm currently testing a fix in
https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/commit/1f89ae7622c26b8131f42f3a362d6ef41b88a595,
can you please share with me your steps to test/verify that the patch
fixes the issue for eBPF? I'll go talk to a co-worker who know more
about eBPF, but I've not yet done anything with it.
Also, does anyone know who I should talk to about ICC testing?
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists