[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <78396ba82562326f4b3a395a63e3e8dc38d608b2.camel@perches.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 21:22:22 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: 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 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.
The separate compiler file changes are much more sensible,
even if it takes a few days.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists