[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8b9eaca3ab7b05db8b5562284484a24d44bf6cce.camel@perches.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 15:23:31 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/llvm: add documentation on building w/
Clang/LLVM
On Wed, 2020-02-26 at 15:18 -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 2:21 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-02-25 at 13:56 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > I think we should take a specific version stand as the
> > > "minimum" version. Being able to build x86 defconfig is a good minimum
> > > IMO.
> >
> > Agree.
> >
> > It's odd to say that clang 4 is fine for arm when it's
> > not fine for x86. It's also reasonable to expect arm
> > users to upgrade their compiler to a more recent version
> > when the only cost is a very small bit of time.
>
> That's a very x86 centric point of view.
Really?
How many code generation improvements and possible defects
have been corrected between clang 4 and clang 10 for arm?
I presume more than a few.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists