linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] perf docs: Mark the Android document as obsolete

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: <0c20b4b7-c1f6-4c0e-9f89-a99c25555640@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 14:49:47 +0100
From: Leo Yan <leo.yan@....com>
To: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
 clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
 Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
 Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
 "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
 Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
 Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Bill Wendling
 <morbo@...gle.com>, Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>,
 James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf docs: Mark the Android document as obsolete


On 7/16/24 14:30, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 3:06 AM Leo Yan <leo.yan@....com> wrote:

[...]

>> Thanks for correcting. Now I even can build successfully with the Clang
>> from Android NDK with an additional flag 'NO_DEMANGLE=1'. Though we still
>> need to disable several modules for passing the building, but we are on the
>> right way.
>>
>> Would you like to continue a formal fixing or you want me to follow up?
> 
> +clang-built-linux
> 
> If you could follow up it would be great!

Okay, I will look into it.

> I'm not sure how we detect
> in the build that we're using clang, I suspect there is an approach in
> a different kernel Makefile/Build that already tackles this but my
> quick searching didn't yield anything - perhaps the change would be
> better suited to the location the CROSS_COMPILE prefix is added to
> gcc.

Should we follow up the steps in the Documentation/kbuild/llvm.rst?
The document uses the flag 'LLVM=1' for selecting LLVM/Clang.

Thanks,
Leo

> The only thing the change to Makefile.config is doing is
> injecting the --target option. I'm not sure anything more is not
> working for me on my laptop with this approach compared to cross
> compiling with gcc, but as you say going in the right direction is
> worth it anyway.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ian