[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191018200210.GR28442@gate.crashing.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 15:02:10 -0500
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>
Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] powerpc/prom_init: Use -ffreestanding to avoid a reference to bcmp
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 12:00:22PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> Just as an FYI, there was some more discussion around the availablity
> and use of bcmp in this LLVM bug which spawned
> commit 5f074f3e192f ("lib/string.c: implement a basic bcmp").
>
> https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41035#c13
>
> I believe this is the proper solution but I am fine with whatever works,
> I just want our CI to be green without any out of tree patches again...
I think the proper solution is for the kernel to *do* use -ffreestanding,
and then somehow tell the kernel that memcpy etc. are the standard
functions. A freestanding GCC already requires memcpy, memmove, memset,
memcmp, and sometimes abort to exist and do the standard thing; why cannot
programs then also rely on it to be the standard functions.
What exact functions are the reason the kernel does not use -ffreestanding?
Is it just memcpy? Is more wanted?
Segher
Powered by blists - more mailing lists