On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 4:32 PM Nick Desaulniers <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 2:42 PM Nathan Chancellor > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 01:14:19PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > > During Plumbers 2020, we voted to just support the latest release of > > > Clang for now. Add a compile time check for this. > > > > > > Older clang's may work, but we will likely drop workarounds for older > > > versions. > > > > I think this part of the commit message is a little wishy-washy. If we > > are breaking the build for clang < 10.0.1, we are not saying "may work", > > we are saying "won't work". Because of this, we should take the > > opportunity to clean up behind us and revert/remove parts of: > > > > 87e0d4f0f37f ("kbuild: disable clang's default use of > > -fmerge-all-constants") > > b0fe66cf0950 ("ARM: 8905/1: Emit __gnu_mcount_nc when using Clang 10.0.0 or > > newer") > > b9249cba25a5 ("arm64: bti: Require clang >= 10.0.1 for in-kernel BTI > > support") > > 3acf4be23528 ("arm64: vdso: Fix compilation with clang older than 8") > > I'd prefer to see this land in mainline first; otherwise, I'm worried > about this patch "racing" to mainline with those patches if they go > via separate trees. Thoughts?
Maybe I should send such a series (including Marco's recommendations) to Mr. Morton or Yamada-san? -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers
