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: <1534834088-15835-1-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
 <20180821123832.GA19034@nautica> <CAKwvOdmLQen+TWF_F3e5-66vtF3FEnoxjEgZbjmOZ9cv6YrEpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <acb93bae0086447c7cbe0eec05907335ebae7788.camel@perches.com>
 <CAKwvOdkLGhdQxx3oV=R2kv290NOv_w8qQ_yHWCVpvmofp7+ivQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180822041646.GA21716@nautica> <78396ba82562326f4b3a395a63e3e8dc38d608b2.camel@perches.com>
 <20180822043230.GA26654@nautica>
In-Reply-To: <20180822043230.GA26654@nautica>
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Aug 2018 11:31:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdm+BwvDxAw-A_1v5xO2EjDff1axAttHVz5QnBSxSbKo=g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] compiler-gcc: get back Clang build
To:     asmadeus@codewreck.org
Cc:     joe@perches.com, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, dwmw@amazon.co.uk,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 9:32 PM Dominique Martinet
<asmadeus@codewreck.org> wrote:
>
> Joe Perches wrote on Tue, Aug 21, 2018:
> > On Wed, 2018-08-22 at 06:16 +0200, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> > > I think that could work, but at the point making a separate
> > > compiler-common.h and not including compiler-gcc.h for clang sounds
> > > better to me... More importantly here, either solution sound complex
> > > enough to require more than a few days and proper testing for all archs
> > > etc when compared to the partial revert we have here.
> >
> > The immediate need for a partial revert seems unnecessary as
> > clang hasn't really worked for a couple releases now.
>
> Sorry for repeating myself, clang is used by bcc for compiling BPF
> programs (e.g. bpf_module_create_c_from_string() or any similar function
> will use the clang libs to compile the bpf program with linux headers),
> and this has always been working because it's not using our makefiles.
>
> This broke today in master and I only joined this thread after looking
> at why the build started failing today and noticing this patch, it
> definitely hasn't been broken for two releases, or I wouldn't be here
> with this timing :)
>
>
> > The separate compiler file changes are much more sensible,
> > even if it takes a few days.
>
> A few days are fine, but I think some form of fix in 4.19-rc1 would be
> good.
>
> I'll stop taking your time now, but I think you are/were underestimating
> how many people use clang with the linux kernel headers indirectly.
> BPF is a well-used tool :)

Hi Dominique,
I'm currently testing a fix in
https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/commit/1f89ae7622c26b8131f42f3a362d6ef41b88a595,
can you please share with me your steps to test/verify that the patch
fixes the issue for eBPF?  I'll go talk to a co-worker who know more
about eBPF, but I've not yet done anything with it.

Also, does anyone know who I should talk to about ICC testing?
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers