linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] compiler-gcc.h: add asm

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CANiq72ne3TWt7ydmt9eZsawMfAs-qgPoM92-c1EJ=zfFTdcBQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Sep 2019 18:13:13 +0200
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To:     Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "gcc-patches@....gnu.org" <gcc-patches@....gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] compiler-gcc.h: add asm_inline definition

On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 5:52 PM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Yes and no. GNU libc defines feature test macros like you say, but
> C++'s feature macros are like Rasmus/Nick are saying. I think libc's
> definition is weird, I would call those "feature selection macros"
> instead, because the user is selecting between some features (whether
> to enable or not, for instance), rather than testing for the features.

By the way, this is not to criticize libc, I imagine they employed that
nomenclature since that is what some standards used, but still, the
naming is not great from the users' perspective vs. the header
writer's perspective, IMO.

Cheers,
Miguel