From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] md/raid10, LLVM: get rid of variable length array Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:57:20 +0100 Message-ID: <20170317185720.5s7qa6hl233t24ag@pd.tnic> References: <20170317001520.85223-1-md@google.com> <20170317001520.85223-7-md@google.com> <20170317120837.pr74cv3xuj7qpoin@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170317180350.63jjysejk2i6vkon@pd.tnic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Alexander Potapenko , Peter Zijlstra , Michael Davidson , Michal Marek , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Herbert Xu , "David S. Miller" , Shaohua Li , Matthias Kaehlcke , "x86@kernel.org" , "open list:KERNEL BUILD + fi..." , LKML , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, kbuild-all@01.org To: Dmitry Vyukov Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 07:47:33PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > This problem is more general and is not specific to clang. It equally > applies to different versions of gcc, different arches and different > configs (namely, anything else than what a developer used for > testing). I guess. We do carry a bunch of gcc workarounds along with the cc-* macros in scripts/Kbuild.include. > A known, reasonably well working solution to this problem is > a system of try bots that test patches before commit with different > compilers/configs/archs. We already have such system in the form of > 0-day bots. It would be useful to extend it with clang as soon as > kernel builds. Has someone actually already talked to Fengguang about it? Oh, and the stupid question: why the effort to build the kernel with clang at all? Just because or are there some actual, palpable advantages? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.