[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1be357c91f6469c7a9b0e857fd15bad30347fd09.camel@perches.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 16:31:07 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, asmadeus@...ewreck.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
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>,
daniel@...earbox.net, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] include/linux/compiler*.h: make compiler-*.h mutually
exclusive
On Thu, 2018-08-23 at 16:12 -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 2:19 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2018-08-23 at 14:03 -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > One reply for a bunch of the various threads, to keep the number of emails down:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 5:20 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2018-08-22 at 16:37 -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > > > +/* Compiler specific macros. */
> > > > > #ifdef __clang__
> > > > > #include <linux/compiler-clang.h>
> > > >
> > > > probably better as
> > > >
> > > > #if defined(__clang)
> > > >
> > > > to match the style of the #elif defined()s below it
> > >
> > > Hi Joe,
> > > Thanks for the feedback. I always appreciate it. If you have some
> > > cleanups, want to send them to me, and I'll bundle them up for a PR?
> > > I'm ok with that change.
> > >
> > > > > +#ifdef __GNUC_STDC_INLINE__
> > > > > +# define __gnu_inline __attribute__((gnu_inline))
> > > > > +#else
> > > > > +# define __gnu_inline
> > > > > +#endif
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps __gnu_inline should be in compiler-gcc and this
> > > > should use
> > > >
> > > > #ifndef __gnu_inline
> > > > #define __gnu_inline
> > > > #endif
> > >
> > > Not this case; it's how we get gnu89 semantics for `extern inline` is
> > > not compiler specific (therefor should not go in a compiler specific
> > > header).
> >
> > It's not possible to know that compilers support what
> > __attribute__((<foo>)) and at what version that support
> > exists unless it is specified somewhere.
>
> __has_attribute:
> https://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html#has-attribute
>
> The release notes of GCC-5 mention __has_attribute.
> https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/changes.html
So not available in the now minimum supported gcc 4.6?
> The point of feature detection is that it _doesn't matter_ what
> version that support exists. Either it does and you can use it, or it
> doesn't and you can decide whether to stop compiling or there's a
> valid work around.
>
> Feature detection should be preferred to explicit version checks
> except in 2 specific cases:
> 1. It's not possible to properly perform feature detection. Language
> features should not be added unless it's possible to safely check for
> them.
> 2. A very specific version of a very specific compiler is broken and
> needs to be explicitly guarded against.
>
> > As far as I can tell, gnu_inline is not recognized by clang.
> >
> > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html
>
> If that was the case, I would not have added it in commit d03db2bc26f0
> ("compiler-gcc.h: Add __attribute__((gnu_inline)) to all inline
> declarations").
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=d03db2bc26f0e4a6849ad649a09c9c73fccdc656
Hard to know.
That commit message does not mention clang.
> Docs can sometimes fall behind, the lone source of truth is the source code.
> https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang/search?q=gnu_inline&unscoped_q=gnu_inline
Which no compiler user should have to read.
> Godbolt is also incredibly helpful for testing various compiler versions:
> https://godbolt.org/z/uMJ-mo
Thanks for that.
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D51190
That too.
cheers, Joe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists