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:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc:     Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.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>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
References: <CANiq72=3Vz-_6ctEzDQgTA44jmfSn_XZTS8wP1GHgm31Xm8ECw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190906163028.GC9749@gate.crashing.org> <20190906163918.GJ2120@tucnak>
 <CAKwvOd=MT_=U250tR+t0jTtj7SxKJjnEZ1FmR3ir_PHjcXFLVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190906220347.GD9749@gate.crashing.org>
 <CAKwvOdnWBV35SCRHwMwXf+nrFc+D1E7BfRddb20zoyVJSdecCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190906225606.GF9749@gate.crashing.org>
 <CAKwvOdk-AQVJnD6-=Z0eUQ6KPvDp2eS2zUV=-oL2K2JBCYaOeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190907001411.GG9749@gate.crashing.org>
 <CAKwvOdnaBD3Dg3pmZqX2-=Cd0n30ByMT7KUNZKhq0bsDdFeXpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190907131127.GH9749@gate.crashing.org>
 <CAKwvOdmhcaHpnqhMwzpYdjjwfAhgzq7fqA0Hu8b19E5w3AHz4w@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Message-ID: <e4bf09bf-3aa7-aa7b-529b-f930dc75be4a@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date:   Fri, 13 Sep 2019 00:12:42 +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: <CAKwvOdmhcaHpnqhMwzpYdjjwfAhgzq7fqA0Hu8b19E5w3AHz4w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 12/09/2019 23.54, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 6:11 AM Segher Boessenkool
> <segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 06:04:54PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>>
>>> How would you even write a version check for that?
>>
>> I wouldn't.  Please stop using that straw man.  I'm not saying version
>> checks are good, or useful for most things.  I am saying they are not.
> 
> Then please help Rasmus with a suggestion on how best to detect and
> safely make use of the feature you implemented.  As is, the patch in
> question is using version checks.

I was just about to send out an updated version. I'm just going to do
the check in Kconfig - I didn't realize how easy it had become to do
that kind of thing until Masahiro pointed me at his RFC patch from December.

Rasmus