From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
kbuild-all@lists.01.org,
Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] compiler_attributes.h: Support no_sanitize_undefined check with GCC 4
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 15:19:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200616131921.GV2531@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200615231529.GA119644@google.com>
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 01:15:29AM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> UBSAN is supported since GCC 4.9, which unfortunately did not yet have
> __has_attribute(). To work around, the __GCC4_has_attribute workaround
> requires defining which compiler version supports the given attribute.
>
> In the case of no_sanitize_undefined, it is the first version that
> supports UBSAN, which is GCC 4.9.
>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
> ---
>
> Doing a 'make W=1' with GCC 4.9 and the provided config fixes the build
> robot's report.
>
> Peter: Feel free to either squash this patch into the one adding
> __no_sanitize_undefined or apply on top.
Yeah, argh! So I only saw this thread now, even though I'd already
pushed out x86/entry to tip last night due to getting:
301805 N + Jun 16 kernel test rob (5.8K) [peterz-queue:x86/entry] BUILD SUCCESS 8e8bb06d199a5aa7a534aa3b3fc0abbbc11ca438
Why that thing is claiming SUCCESS when it introduces a build error I
don't know.
Anyway, let me go push this thing on top.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: kbuild-all@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] compiler_attributes.h: Support no_sanitize_undefined check with GCC 4
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 15:19:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200616131921.GV2531@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200615231529.GA119644@google.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1098 bytes --]
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 01:15:29AM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> UBSAN is supported since GCC 4.9, which unfortunately did not yet have
> __has_attribute(). To work around, the __GCC4_has_attribute workaround
> requires defining which compiler version supports the given attribute.
>
> In the case of no_sanitize_undefined, it is the first version that
> supports UBSAN, which is GCC 4.9.
>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
> ---
>
> Doing a 'make W=1' with GCC 4.9 and the provided config fixes the build
> robot's report.
>
> Peter: Feel free to either squash this patch into the one adding
> __no_sanitize_undefined or apply on top.
Yeah, argh! So I only saw this thread now, even though I'd already
pushed out x86/entry to tip last night due to getting:
301805 N + Jun 16 kernel test rob (5.8K) [peterz-queue:x86/entry] BUILD SUCCESS 8e8bb06d199a5aa7a534aa3b3fc0abbbc11ca438
Why that thing is claiming SUCCESS when it introduces a build error I
don't know.
Anyway, let me go push this thing on top.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-16 13:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-15 19:48 [peterz-queue:x86/entry 5/8] include/linux/compiler-gcc.h:153:5: note: in expansion of macro '__has_attribute' kernel test robot
2020-06-15 23:15 ` [PATCH] compiler_attributes.h: Support no_sanitize_undefined check with GCC 4 Marco Elver
2020-06-15 23:15 ` Marco Elver
2020-06-16 13:09 ` Miguel Ojeda
2020-06-16 13:19 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2020-06-16 13:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-06-17 1:00 ` [kbuild-all] " Rong Chen
2020-06-17 1:00 ` Rong Chen
2020-06-17 8:30 ` [kbuild-all] " Peter Zijlstra
2020-06-17 8:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-06-17 8:30 ` [tip: x86/entry] " tip-bot2 for Marco Elver
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200616131921.GV2531@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=kbuild-all@lists.01.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.