linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] m68k/bitops: use __builtin_{clz,ctzl,ffs} to evaluate constant expressions

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: <00a7e866-23ff-fc63-b6df-364580f69c78@linux-m68k.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 20:48:52 +1100 (AEDT)
From: Finn Thain <fthain@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Vincent MAILHOL <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
cc: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>, 
    Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
    "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
    Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>, 
    Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, 
    Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>, 
    Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, 
    Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, 
    Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>, 
    Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>, 
    Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Brian Cain <bcain@...cinc.com>, 
    Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, 
    Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, 
    "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, 
    "linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org" <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] m68k/bitops: use __builtin_{clz,ctzl,ffs} to
 evaluate constant expressions


On Mon, 5 Feb 2024, Vincent MAILHOL wrote:

> 
> This is why I am asking whether or not clang support is important or not 
> for m68k. If you tell me it is not, then fine, I will remove all the asm 
> (by the way, the patch is already ready). But if there are even a few 
> users who care about clang for m68k, then I do not think we should 
> penalize them and I would not sign-off a change which negatively impacts 
> some users.
> 

If clang support is important then clang's builtins are important. So why 
not improve those instead? That would resolve the issue in a win-win.