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: <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>
 <CANiq72nXXBgwKcs36R+uau2o1YypfSFKAYWV2xmcRZgz8LRQww@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190906122349.GZ9749@gate.crashing.org> <CANiq72=3Vz-_6ctEzDQgTA44jmfSn_XZTS8wP1GHgm31Xm8ECw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190906163028.GC9749@gate.crashing.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190906163028.GC9749@gate.crashing.org>
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Sep 2019 18:47:54 +0200
Message-ID: <CANiq72k9BjDBChLMjbUbAsB3+DiX_efc6A010TYgrbyEg=xx=w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] compiler-gcc.h: add asm_inline definition
To:     Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 6:30 PM Segher Boessenkool
<segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> (Which isn't the C++ standard yet, okay).

At this stage, it pretty much is. It is basically bug fixing at this point.

> No, that is not what it does.  A user defines such a macro, and that
> makes the library change behaviour.

That is what I have said:

  "I want to test if the user enabled the feature"

means the *library* tests if the user enabled the feature before
including the library. But the user does not want to test anything.

Cheers,
Miguel