[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdkD0cmF5373LRS92U--ptRvikSrG_oKyE-AiaybCQYMBg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 16:00:55 -0700
From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To: daniel.santos@...ox.com
Cc: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, sparse@...isli.org,
linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] compiler.h: give up __compiletime_assert_fallback()
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:42 PM Daniel Santos <daniel.santos@...ox.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Nick,
>
> On 08/27/2018 03:09 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> >>> Let's give up __compiletime_assert_fallback(). This commit does not
> >>> change the current behavior since it just rips off the useless code.
> >> Clang is not the only target audience of
> >> __compiletime_assert_fallback(). Instead of ripping out something that
> >> may benefit builds with gcc 4.2 and earlier, why not override its
> > Note that with commit cafa0010cd51 ("Raise the minimum required gcc
> > version to 4.6") that gcc < 4.6 is irrelevant.
>
> Ah, I guess I'm not keeping up, that's wonderful news! Considering that
> I guess I would be OK with its removal, but I still think it would be
> better if a similar mechanism to break the Clang build could be found.
I'm consulting with our best language lawyers to see what combinations
of _Static_assert and __builtin_constant_p would do the trick.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists