From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752252AbdKCOOS (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Nov 2017 10:14:18 -0400 Received: from frisell.zx2c4.com ([192.95.5.64]:37791 "EHLO frisell.zx2c4.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751957AbdKCOOQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Nov 2017 10:14:16 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+Q9iirpgDG69EZ35ZQRigRBvNbPAz7cVlEDrcbHQ657qLcfvHTKzY5QsF8lAXocPDEX37263tPrB0xKKa1A5bI= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171103134223.GD13499@arm.com> References: <20171102134720.GA17333@arm.com> <20171102174322.21853-1-Jason@zx2c4.com> <20171103134223.GD13499@arm.com> From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 15:14:13 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: support __int128 on gcc 5+ To: Will Deacon Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, LKML , Mark Rutland , wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com, Ard Biesheuvel Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > We used to link against libgcc way back when, but that dependency was > removed in commit d67703a8a69e ("arm64: kill off the libgcc dependency") > and I'm really not keen to add it back. I also think that there might > be licensing concerns if you link against it and make use of GCC plugins, > but IANAL. Considering many other architectures link to it, that seems strange to me... > > Shouldn't we just provide our own implementations of __ashlti3 and > __ashrti3 instead? I just coded up an implementation. I'm testing it now and I'll have v3 for you shortly. Jason From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason@zx2c4.com (Jason A. Donenfeld) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 15:14:13 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2] arm64: support __int128 on gcc 5+ In-Reply-To: <20171103134223.GD13499@arm.com> References: <20171102134720.GA17333@arm.com> <20171102174322.21853-1-Jason@zx2c4.com> <20171103134223.GD13499@arm.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > We used to link against libgcc way back when, but that dependency was > removed in commit d67703a8a69e ("arm64: kill off the libgcc dependency") > and I'm really not keen to add it back. I also think that there might > be licensing concerns if you link against it and make use of GCC plugins, > but IANAL. Considering many other architectures link to it, that seems strange to me... > > Shouldn't we just provide our own implementations of __ashlti3 and > __ashrti3 instead? I just coded up an implementation. I'm testing it now and I'll have v3 for you shortly. Jason