From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753351AbdDNRpB (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Apr 2017 13:45:01 -0400 Received: from mail-pg0-f49.google.com ([74.125.83.49]:35978 "EHLO mail-pg0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751960AbdDNRpA (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Apr 2017 13:45:00 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 10:44:58 -0700 From: Matthias Kaehlcke To: Masahiro Yamada Cc: linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, David Howells , Michael Davidson , Michal Marek , Jan Beulich , Alexander van Heukelum , Jeroen Hofstee , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kbuild: fix asm-offset generation to work with clang Message-ID: <20170414174458.GL28657@google.com> References: <1492149003-19136-1-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> <1492149003-19136-3-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1492149003-19136-3-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org El Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 02:50:03PM +0900 Masahiro Yamada ha dit: > From: Jeroen Hofstee > > KBuild abuses the asm statement to write to a file and > clang chokes about these invalid asm statements. Hack it > even more by fooling this is actual valid asm code. > > Signed-off-by: Jeroen Hofstee > [masahiro: > Import Jeroen's work for U-Boot: > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/375026/ > Tweak sed script a little to drop garbage '#' for GCC case, like > #define NR_PAGEFLAGS 23 /* __NR_PAGEFLAGS # */ ] > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada Reviewed-by: Matthias Kaehlcke Tested-by: Matthias Kaehlcke I tested with x86 and arm64. Please note that two more changes are needed to avoid breaking frv and um: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9660473/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9660503/ Maybe these should be part of your patch set? I only sent them out separately to avoid cross posting with my initial patch for this issue being a RFC. Cheers Matthias