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:   Tue, 18 Jun 2019 17:20:21 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genksyms: Teach parser about 128-bit built-in types
Message-ID: <20190618162021.GA4270@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20190618131048.543-1-will.deacon@arm.com>
 <CAK8P3a3phkiL8LFQM_AewMCE0EpQaCTOmgkVJe4x9oV84F4_7g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a3phkiL8LFQM_AewMCE0EpQaCTOmgkVJe4x9oV84F4_7g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.1+86 (6f28e57d73f2) ()
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Arnd,

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 04:17:35PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 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.

My understanding is that the actual CRC generation for normal symbols is
based purely on the string-representation of the function signature, and
so the underlying type information isn't relevant to that. I can also
confirm that the CRC for an exported symbol that returns a __uint128_t
is not the same if you change it to return a __int128_t instead.

Will