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: <20190618131048.543-1-will.deacon@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190618131048.543-1-will.deacon@arm.com>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jun 2019 16:17:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a3phkiL8LFQM_AewMCE0EpQaCTOmgkVJe4x9oV84F4_7g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genksyms: Teach parser about 128-bit built-in types
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>,
        Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 3:10 PM Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
>
> +       { "__int128", BUILTIN_INT_KEYW },
> +       { "__int128_t", BUILTIN_INT_KEYW },
> +       { "__uint128_t", BUILTIN_INT_KEYW },

I wonder if it's safe to treat them as the same type, since
__int128_t and __uint128_t differ in signedness.

If someone exports a symbol with one and changes it to the other, they
would appear to be the same type.

        Arnd