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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <20180404093007.GI4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180404191724.GF87376@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180404191724.GF87376@google.com>
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 04 Apr 2018 23:04:46 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdmq0iXCze0YWcNHAf+vVzj4F2bTDc=gy+t6BgH4qa8mSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/build changes for v4.17
To:     Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:17 PM Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> wrote:
> Even with clang having known issues it would be preferable not to
> break kernel builds with clang, if this doesn't place a signifcant
> burden on the kernel. I'm not sure it is strictly necessary to 'wait'
> for clang to enforce asm-goto for gcc (and thus the vast majority of
> builds), which is the primary goal of your patch. Couldn't we just
> exclude clang for now from raising the error when lack of asm-goto
> support is detected?

In particular, I worry that this now stalls adding clang support to 0-day,
since now this will fail outright to compile.
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers