linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sparc/build: Make all compiler flags also clang-compatible

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: <e26PTXUXEz8OYXmaeKn4Mpuejr4IOlFfFwdB5vpsluXlYiqDdlyQTYcDtdAny_o4gO4SfPeQCCN2qpyT6e0nog5EaP3xk2SeUPTrF54p1gM=@protonmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 12:18:17 +0000
From: Koakuma <koachan@...tonmail.com>
To: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Andreas Larsson <andreas@...sler.com>, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>, Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>, glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sparc/build: Make all compiler flags also clang-compatible

Hi Nathan,

Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org> wrote:

> I saw through the LLVM issue above that one other patch is necessary to
> fix an issue in the vDSO [1], which I applied in testing this one. 

Mhmm, I did not submit that yet because I don't feel fully confident
with it. I think it should probably live in include/vdso/math64.h
as plain C code instead of the current asm version, but I don't know
what is the proper way to check the current environment's word size.
Is checking BITS_PER_LONG enough, or should I do it in another way?

> I noticed in applying that change that you appear to be working on 6.1,
> which is fine for now, but you'll need another diff once you get to a
> newer version, as we stopped using CROSS_COMPILE to set clang's
> '--target=' value:
> 
> diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.clang b/scripts/Makefile.clang
> index 6c23c6af797f..2435efae67f5 100644
> --- a/scripts/Makefile.clang
> +++ b/scripts/Makefile.clang
> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_mips := mipsel-linux-gnu
> CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_powerpc := powerpc64le-linux-gnu
> CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_riscv := riscv64-linux-gnu
> CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_s390 := s390x-linux-gnu
> +CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_sparc := sparc64-linux-gnu
> CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_x86 := x86_64-linux-gnu
> CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_um := $(CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_$(SUBARCH))
> CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS := $(CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_$(SRCARCH))

Yeah, I was working with 6.1 at that time since it's the version
that my distro have installed for me. Now this is more of a workflow
question, but this means I should submit a v2 with this change
merged in with mine too, right?

And thanks for the feedback!