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:   Mon, 21 Oct 2019 22:15:29 -0700
From:   Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
To:     Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] powerpc/prom_init: Use -ffreestanding to avoid a
 reference to bcmp
Message-ID: <20191022051529.GA44041@ubuntu-m2-xlarge-x86>
References: <20190911182049.77853-1-natechancellor@gmail.com>
 <20191014025101.18567-1-natechancellor@gmail.com>
 <20191014025101.18567-4-natechancellor@gmail.com>
 <20191014093501.GE28442@gate.crashing.org>
 <CAKwvOdmcUT2A9FG0JD9jd0s=gAavRc_h+RLG6O3mBz4P1FfF8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191014191141.GK28442@gate.crashing.org>
 <20191018190022.GA1292@ubuntu-m2-xlarge-x86>
 <20191018200210.GR28442@gate.crashing.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191018200210.GR28442@gate.crashing.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 03:02:10PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 12:00:22PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > Just as an FYI, there was some more discussion around the availablity
> > and use of bcmp in this LLVM bug which spawned
> > commit 5f074f3e192f ("lib/string.c: implement a basic bcmp").
> > 
> > https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41035#c13
> > 
> > I believe this is the proper solution but I am fine with whatever works,
> > I just want our CI to be green without any out of tree patches again...
> 
> I think the proper solution is for the kernel to *do* use -ffreestanding,
> and then somehow tell the kernel that memcpy etc. are the standard
> functions.  A freestanding GCC already requires memcpy, memmove, memset,
> memcmp, and sometimes abort to exist and do the standard thing; why cannot
> programs then also rely on it to be the standard functions.
> 
> What exact functions are the reason the kernel does not use -ffreestanding?
> Is it just memcpy?  Is more wanted?
> 
> 
> Segher

I think Linus summarized it pretty well here:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wi-epJZfBHDbKKDZ64us7WkF=LpUfhvYBmZSteO8Q0RAg@mail.gmail.com/

Cheers,
Nathan