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: <20241023164535.GB4081497@thelio-3990X>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 09:45:35 -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 12:38:59PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 9:44 AM Koakuma <koachan@...tonmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm not sure if I should update the documentation now given that LLVM support
> > is nowhere near as complete as other architectures, but I'll do it if needed...
> 
> Nathan said he was able to build the kernel.
> 
> If so, I think this should be documented (required LLVM version and
> the supported build command),
> otherwise people cannot test this patch.

I am not sure that there is a super concise way to describe for
Documentation/kbuild/llvm.rst that sparc currently requires 'CC=clang
LLVM_IAS=0' along with a build of clang from the main branch of
llvm-project to work properly. I worry that adding any sort of mention
of sparc in there will have people flooding to try older versions of
clang like you did or LLVM=1 when there are obviously known issues that
the upstream LLVM folks have not had a chance to tackle (but maybe it
will be good to get issues on file for those).

If it would be useful, I could send a separate email documenting exactly
what was tested and how it was tested as a reference in the face of
future changes, until better support for the LLVM tools is enacted.

Cheers,
Nathan