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 15:17:44 -0700
From:   Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <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>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@google.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>,
        Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@google.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/build changes for v4.17
Message-ID: <20180404221744.GI87376@google.com>
References: <20180403085904.GY4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180403095118.rpf7tj577dppvx7d@gmail.com>
 <20180403180658.GE87376@google.com>
 <20180404093007.GI4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180404191724.GF87376@google.com>
 <CAK8P3a1VFWYBymd3AeG1DwW++tCGsP9+vw6t8XSGHby2jmQPqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180404205848.GG87376@google.com>
 <CAK8P3a2tf3v6seq=OeyBakZ1ZXYzzL=tY=aHvKYv-GtD7sWeTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180404214639.GH87376@google.com>
 <CA+55aFwp8vRmf5p09nbunp6DfO+YvvWLj=FsU8KSW0ZwF6u80w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFwp8vRmf5p09nbunp6DfO+YvvWLj=FsU8KSW0ZwF6u80w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

El Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 02:59:09PM -0700 Linus Torvalds ha dit:

> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > I understand this is annoying, but it seems I'm missing something:
> 
> I think you're looking at !AEABI case.
> 
> The AEABI case is worse. It ends up getting the code from
> include/asm-generic/div64.h after defining a few helper inline asm
> functions.
> 
> It's probably best if you start taking some recreational drugs
> _before_ looking at that code.  It might make you go "Ooh, kewl!"
> instead of trying to dig out your eyeballs with a rusty spoon.

Thanks, though I really should have followed your advice ...

Getting our compiler team high to look into this might affect a timely
(and correct ...) implementation of asm-goto and others important
features. Arnd, do you have another, preferably simple instance to
keep our compiler folks (halfway) sane?