linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] Kbuild: implement support for DWARF v5

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: <CAK7LNAQH==pU73=tF+wHNKPn4J1WvGoxo3trZ9pBU7d-qFK6Yw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Feb 2021 09:33:56 +0900
From:   Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
To:     Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>
Cc:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Fangrui Song <maskray@...gle.com>,
        Caroline Tice <cmtice@...gle.com>,
        Nick Clifton <nickc@...hat.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] Kbuild: implement support for DWARF v5

On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 8:36 AM Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 08:06:12AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > GCC never outputs '.file 0', which is why
> > this test is only needed for Clang, correct?
>
> No, GCC outputs .file 0 if it during configure time detected assembler that
> supports it and doesn't have any of the known bugs related to it.
> But that means kernel doesn't need to care because GCC already took care of
> that.


OK, then I am fine with the current code.

Thanks for the clarification.







--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada