From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46482C3A5A1 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 22:21:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B669E233A1 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 22:21:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="jXn6+gJp" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B669E233A1 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46JgFj32mmzDr6q for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 08:21:45 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=google.com (client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::544; helo=mail-pg1-x544.google.com; envelope-from=ndesaulniers@google.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="jXn6+gJp"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail-pg1-x544.google.com (mail-pg1-x544.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::544]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46Jg7k4pLzzDrJf for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 08:16:34 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-pg1-x544.google.com with SMTP id n9so459503pgc.1 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 15:16:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=cI7lPiUMiKomeyCUPJV8+wea36GrOdMvUW16YwohpL4=; b=jXn6+gJpaxbVNRJosKVFyJhneE9YA5zZwsY8f08DrvC0jdN8yLLcVGCWMK2MI3asR4 mR/w63vTs01x2zv23z7+ENGGZQxl5lP0L7IswMDFJOeF+PfFa5XufKp3POnqA+d+T6gY iU+oHtm3aswQz2vouOHL+N524tw8/MB11zHdlBgBdRzuAh47R8nLGjf1MN97LAs8TJRe t/WglKh0C6Rjvv9Re03vW31Joo/EvEeqi4mSkOvC7ypSmqITd1jZJvKuBnm7iaOIvEcf ItToIAbDhJ7/bc4XNow2l99yUWnAB+lmrvfN0Ccw9w/MiRJ2uXkTq0B2GJ7+NypqqmIG MYiQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=cI7lPiUMiKomeyCUPJV8+wea36GrOdMvUW16YwohpL4=; b=HB4ujUkYFquIRKm1GDVYQ0fEtMqcEDngiVIx/u/RVxuGSi4fUcaxwb/O0HDfdZROxO pAh6Pez0OJgdJyr9d3Z1vydKDF/v5yBIXwqtSkxTMcZWcLRyFLA4WduMWE8oRG7dDpFF 7rZaNm9xrH/0tjnV60cJGX7FdTQkHg7ACv4Ss8opduyaFf3dEKZ0G/L9qaKeuizqKRAM s3M2GpkBmJSsoTpeZM1IHbUMykAYyfop04pxAtuWG8gtku/HYsFuAsmJfdGd+N+tdtZf C0dFl+Jwxs3XvHCr8K86++Q3zUvfDZmqKhVV4npTP9N4l4XmTBZp82qIX0TIri4farxk Yotw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVd+gHI4Dk8TproQN5YGUbZAnLe5qJPDPphb2QNHf28kpIBP2MN eXZP6EDJL5uB8U78IjK+aFkosAltcc0qYvAoRMiOBw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzuyqHfthUYWwSiGUlecSwGfmshq015FiqdVWTRGOTXZRuEO4B0tLgZTFnI+YVgOwfSzB5KTyCLaEyT79V8AoY= X-Received: by 2002:a65:690b:: with SMTP id s11mr3546456pgq.10.1567030590292; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 15:16:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190812023214.107817-1-natechancellor@gmail.com> <878srdv206.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> <20190828175322.GA121833@archlinux-threadripper> <20190828184529.GC127646@archlinux-threadripper> In-Reply-To: <20190828184529.GC127646@archlinux-threadripper> From: Nick Desaulniers Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 15:16:19 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Avoid clang warnings around setjmp and longjmp To: Nathan Chancellor Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: LKML , "# 3.4.x" , clang-built-linux , Paul Mackerras , linuxppc-dev Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:45 AM Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:01:14AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 10:53 AM Nathan Chancellor > > wrote: > > > > > > Yes, I don't think this would be unreasonable. Are you referring to the > > > cc-disable-warning flags or the -fno-builtin flags? I personally think > > > the -fno-builtin flags convey to clang what the kernel is intending to > > > do better than disabling the warnings outright. > > > > The `-f` family of flags have dire implications for codegen, I'd > > really prefer we think long and hard before adding/removing them to > > suppress warnings. I don't think it's a solution for this particular > > problem. > > I am fine with whatever approach gets this warning fixed to the > maintainer's satisfaction... > > However, I think that -fno-builtin-* would be appropriate here because > we are providing our own setjmp implementation, meaning clang should not > be trying to do anything with the builtin implementation like building a > declaration for it. That's a good reason IMO. IIRC, the -fno-builtin-* flags don't warn if * is some unrecognized value, so -fno-builtin-setjmp may not actually do anything, and you may need to scan the source (of clang or llvm). -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers