linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] sparc/build: Rework CFLAGS for clang compatibility

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: <20241023163552.GA4081497@thelio-3990X>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 09:35:52 -0700
From: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
To: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
Cc: Koakuma <koachan@...tonmail.com>, Andreas Larsson <andreas@...sler.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
	Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>,
	Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>, glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de,
	Nicolas Schier <nicolas@...sle.eu>, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] sparc/build: Rework CFLAGS for clang compatibility

On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 12:29:26PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> With running this command in Ubuntu 24.10, I got improvements,
> but I still got another build error.  (unknown argument: '-mv8plus')

> clang: error: unknown argument: '-mv8plus'
> make[5]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:229:

> masahiro@...6c94ac88c:~/workspace/linux-kbuild$ clang --version
> Ubuntu clang version 19.1.1 (1ubuntu1)

> Is this version too old, or am I missing something?

Yes, that is the issue resolved by the pull request that Koakuma
mentioned in the changelog:

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98713
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/6c270a8b9f1e1b80a6016aafb438db7dd89bcb99

which depends on some codegen changes too:

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/aca971d336d9c7650120fc0fd6dfe58866408216

Those patches missed the LLVM 19 branch point by a couple of weeks:

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/8f701b5df0adb3a2960d78ca2ad9cf53f39ba2fe

They are relatively simple, so maybe we would have a chance of
convincing the stable maintainer of LLVM to take them for a later 19.1
release but given how little usage this is likely to see until the full
LLVM stack is further developed, I am not sure that petition would be
worth it.

Cheers,
Nathan