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=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 16F68C742D2 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2019 01:47:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA3520863 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2019 01:47:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="K8AtATm5" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727705AbfGMBqt (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jul 2019 21:46:49 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-f194.google.com ([209.85.208.194]:32847 "EHLO mail-lj1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727654AbfGMBqs (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jul 2019 21:46:48 -0400 Received: by mail-lj1-f194.google.com with SMTP id h10so11022536ljg.0 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 18:46:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YpQBVIzXh6maHmnk6CkzSIf8JtAzl5sL2cPmtNRfmXk=; b=K8AtATm5+VzKcjCh1t23FiisxnQ59lcDmayDKPzNLSACmY2usb4c4BiBeo+WS4EL/u 6ymFl96lKJSvZK4VnUvz6ftqiORSOFYBPH+iqvhueUX2d7+6oUY2iYIvP51yPPPJ4KCp JxrjT03/3RhJisxpkJPXnyPccXkRiV7XpOTcc= 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=YpQBVIzXh6maHmnk6CkzSIf8JtAzl5sL2cPmtNRfmXk=; b=cmJTPqHaanTeVGYwb/yPR3yJVVwTmkYkXq0XJOG027y0EplyGuadp+aNJWECUxz+2I F/FDFXF0ChsItUrw3XBXrWny9c4XUyAO5viTOoj4bwCIwf5c4HMH6KgiHkRNqqYCqOwJ MVQJ2PoxO/cXrDS2HYlp5gOnTMKCr8xs/LIrg+vJ1y7bLiRDmCYLKg8Yy1tlYg8Q2QXb bbVf0WrAUyIrBdO32HxVj5UW0UYEzuGIy1b2PuTNcNsvMmJZEoRf/W7SZ4aDDjaRtPvn 4PGR8VwCTjIRICIjSHx9wr1OTOtyRv8W2/uij/sWQN+xNIsif7J6LqZno2UTd2TK+bs1 gF6A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUJS6Xp0DL/Jws872tF6AxAZweKvY3k7dRKgXBeC0WmviwNkt2V fp402J87UiLonjY0nrlGqDM4jTFIceM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwzVuEGKWMZJJeZfpuSyfPYyxz53oT8/7bI/S4ovvXMOkFkNtUNud9f4osufSLFtWCBhdGTsw== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b4e4:: with SMTP id s4mr6601315ljm.207.1562982405949; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 18:46:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lj1-f177.google.com (mail-lj1-f177.google.com. [209.85.208.177]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v14sm1728145ljh.51.2019.07.12.18.46.43 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Jul 2019 18:46:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-f177.google.com with SMTP id k18so11011214ljc.11 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 18:46:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b0e6:: with SMTP id h6mr7313053ljl.18.1562982402950; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 18:46:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190712010556.248319-1-briannorris@chromium.org> In-Reply-To: From: Brian Norris Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 18:46:31 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] bug: always show source-tree-relative paths in WARN()/BUG() To: Masahiro Yamada Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Kbuild mailing list , Jason Baron , Andrew Morton , Steven Rostedt , Kees Cook , Borislav Petkov , Michal Marek Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 6:50 PM Masahiro Yamada wrote: > GCC 8 added this flag. > So, it will be eventually all solved in the GCC world. Ack. > Clang has not supported it yet... That's what it appeared like. I've bugged our Clang-loving toolchain folks to see if we can get parity. > Trimming absolute path at run-time > is no help for reducing the kernel image. Sure, but that's not my stated goal. It would indeed be nicer though. I guess if no one else speaks up with a favorable word toward my RFC, I'll just see what I can do on the toolchain side. Thanks for the help, Brian