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: <20190812023214.107817-1-natechancellor@gmail.com>
 <878srdv206.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> <20190828175322.GA121833@archlinux-threadripper>
 <CAKwvOdmXbYrR6n-cxKt3XxkE4Lmj0sSoZBUtHVb0V2LTUFHmug@mail.gmail.com> <20190828184529.GC127646@archlinux-threadripper>
In-Reply-To: <20190828184529.GC127646@archlinux-threadripper>
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Aug 2019 15:16:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKwvOd=wdscd7smcKZk40zD_n1OUVkhYYd7ZnoK8r1Y+pkvYVg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Avoid clang warnings around setjmp and longjmp
To:     Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
Cc:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
        "# 3.4.x" <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:45 AM Nathan Chancellor
<natechancellor@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:01:14AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 10:53 AM Nathan Chancellor
> > <natechancellor@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, I don't think this would be unreasonable. Are you referring to the
> > > cc-disable-warning flags or the -fno-builtin flags? I personally think
> > > the -fno-builtin flags convey to clang what the kernel is intending to
> > > do better than disabling the warnings outright.
> >
> > The `-f` family of flags have dire implications for codegen, I'd
> > really prefer we think long and hard before adding/removing them to
> > suppress warnings.  I don't think it's a solution for this particular
> > problem.
>
> I am fine with whatever approach gets this warning fixed to the
> maintainer's satisfaction...
>
> However, I think that -fno-builtin-* would be appropriate here because
> we are providing our own setjmp implementation, meaning clang should not
> be trying to do anything with the builtin implementation like building a
> declaration for it.

That's a good reason IMO.  IIRC, the -fno-builtin-* flags don't warn
if * is some unrecognized value, so -fno-builtin-setjmp may not
actually do anything, and you may need to scan the source (of clang or
llvm).

-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers