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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] compiler-gcc.h: add asm_inline definition
To:     Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>,
        "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
References: <20190829083233.24162-1-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
 <20190830231527.22304-1-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
 <20190830231527.22304-5-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
 <CAKwvOdktYpMH8WnEQwNE2JJdKn4w0CHv3L=YHkqU2JzQ6Qwkew@mail.gmail.com>
 <a5085133-33da-6c13-6953-d18cbc6ad3f5@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
 <20190905134535.GP9749@gate.crashing.org>
From:   Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Message-ID: <ceb01e88-b172-d6e7-98d4-c14ddeae87d9@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date:   Thu, 5 Sep 2019 16:23:11 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190905134535.GP9749@gate.crashing.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 05/09/2019 15.45, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi Rasmus,
> 
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 01:07:11PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> On 05/09/2019 02.18, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>>> Is it too late to ask for a feature test macro? Maybe one already
>>> exists? 
>>
>> No, not as far as I know.
> 
> [ That's not what a feature test macro is; a feature test macro allows the
>   user to select some optional behaviour.  Things like _GNU_SOURCE.  ]
> 
>> Perhaps something like below, though that
>> won't affect the already released gcc 9.1 and 9.2, of course.
> 
> That is one reason to not want such a predefined macro.  Another reason
> is that you usually need to compile some test programs *anyway*, to see if
> some bug is present for example, or to see if the exact implementation of
> the feature is beneficial (or harmful) to your program in some way.

OK, I think I'll just use a version check for now, and then switch to a
Kconfig test if and when clang grows support.

>> gcc maintainers, WDYT? Can we add a feature test macro for asm inline()?
> 
> 
> Why would GCC want to have macros for all features it has? 

Well, gcc has implemented __has_attribute() which is similar - one could
detect support by compiling a trivial test program. Or the same could be
said for many of the predefined macros that are conditionally defined,
e.g. __HAVE_SPECULATION_SAFE_VALUE.

But I was just throwing the question into the air, I won't pursue this
further.

Thanks,
Rasmus