linux-kernel - Re: Buiild error in i915/xe

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgLV3vk5TanOci16txzuQfQgxZHaGZjTWudLf2hKHZB=w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2025 14:04:10 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>, 
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, 
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, 
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, "Jason A . Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>, 
	"pedro.falcato@...il.com" <pedro.falcato@...il.com>, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>, 
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, 
	intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, 
	David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, 
	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Buiild error in i915/xe

On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 at 13:59, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>
> I am not sure what to do here. That kind of problem seems difficult
> to avoid, and I am sure we will hit it again elsewhere. Should I declare
> gcc 13.x off limits for parisc builds ?

No, I'm sure it can happen on other architectures too.

I think the only thing that makes parisc trigger this is that its
WARN_ON() is slightly different from others, and uses the
"__ret_warn_on" a few more times, and that just happens to make the
compiler decide to simplify all those tests.

Or something like that.

           Linus