Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:19:09 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Cc:     Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        James Y Knight <jyknight@google.com>,
        Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@google.com>,
        Stephen Hines <srhines@google.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@google.com>, groeck@chromium.org,
        Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@google.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/build changes for v4.17
Message-ID: <20180404091909.GH4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20180402095033.nfzcrmxvpm46dhbl@gmail.com>
 <CA+55aFzV8L-uv9706ryJ2mP9VGBuzqFVPu1cgYY+sZAtDAroqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180403085904.GY4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180403095118.rpf7tj577dppvx7d@gmail.com>
 <20180403180658.GE87376@google.com>
 <CAKwvOdkaBNTyNjackJcWYkdfwyR2wjAruMFqN8LuYqC8V0ii_A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKwvOdkaBNTyNjackJcWYkdfwyR2wjAruMFqN8LuYqC8V0ii_A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.3 (2018-01-21)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 09:58:03PM +0000, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> Speaking more with our internal LLVM teams, there ARE a few different
> approaches to implementing asm-goto in LLVM proposed, by external parties
> to Google.  These proposals haven't progressed to code review, so we've
> asked our LLVM teams to reignite these discussions with increased priority,
> if not implement the feature outright.  We (Google kernel AND llvm hackers)
> are committed to supporting the Linux kernel being built with Clang.
> 
> I can see both sides where eventually a long-requested feature-request
> should come to a head, especially with good evidence (
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/2/14/895), but just as you wouldn't accept a
> patch that doesn't compile with GCC, I'd like to request that we don't
> merge patches that fail to compile with Clang (or at least start to think
> what that might look like).

Again, I ask what the plans are for asm-cc-output, hard depending on
that is a few years out I imagine, but if you don't promise feature
parity for all the features we use, I can see this all happening again.

Also, it would be good to get input on the whole memory model situation;
esp. with people looking to do LTO builds, the C/C++ memory model can
cause us quite some grief, for specifics I feel we should start a new
thread. But this is another issue that's been raised several times
without feedback.