Messages in this thread |  | | From | Nick Desaulniers <> | Date | Tue, 21 Aug 2018 10:00:32 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] compiler-gcc: get back Clang build |
| |
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 9:45 AM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 2018-08-21 at 09:32 -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:38 AM Dominique Martinet > > <asmadeus@codewreck.org> wrote: > > > > > > Nick Desaulniers Aug. 21, 2018, 8:09 a.m. UTC: > > > > Thanks for noticing, and sending this patch. I'm happy to see others > > > > testing with Clang. I noticed this too near the end of the day > > > > https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/27. > > > > > > FWIW libbcc so many BPF users also use clang, so this has more impact > > > than just testing to build linux with clang (not that this would be any > > > reason to delay fixing either way) > > > > > > I would tend to agree havin a compiler-common + make clang/intel not > > > include compiler-gcc would probably be best in the long run but we might > > > want a quick fix for 4.19 meanwhile.. > > > > That's fair. SOP here is quick (full) revert, then come up with a > > better fix. And I do prefer Masahiro's partial revert to a full > > revert of Joe's patch. That will give us more time to develop the > > proper fix rather than rush. I'll try to see how we can more properly > > split the compiler specific headers. > > > > Tested with gcc-7 and clang-8. > > clang-8? Isn't the latest officlal clang 6.0.1 ?
Yes, but I have a local llvm tree that I work out of, that's in my $PATH, so my version of clang is never too far behind Top of Tree. For android, we're using clang-5, but currently staging an upgrade to clang 6.0.1.
> So if something other than 6.0.x is required, > then some additional check should probably be > added to compiler-clang.h as well. >
Sure, but that doesn't need to go in Mashiro's patch today. That can wait for a proper separation between compiler headers where we can then implement improved version checks.
-- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers
|  |