On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 02:46:32PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > I wonder if an error might be more appropriate than a warning. I > > learned from experience that a lot of people don't see these Makefile > > warnings, and this would be a dangerous one to miss. > > > > Also if this were an error, you could get rid of the RETPOLINE define, > > and that would be one less define cluttering up the already way-too-long > > GCC arg list. > > It still allows to get the ASM part covered. If that's worth it I can't tell. So elsewhere you stated we're dropping support for GCC without asm-goto (<4.5), does it then make sense to make one more step and mandate a retpoline capable compiler, which would put us at >=4.9 (for x86). That would get rid of this weird case as well.
