On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 09:58:03PM +0000, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > Speaking more with our internal LLVM teams, there ARE a few different > approaches to implementing asm-goto in LLVM proposed, by external parties > to Google. These proposals haven't progressed to code review, so we've > asked our LLVM teams to reignite these discussions with increased priority, > if not implement the feature outright. We (Google kernel AND llvm hackers) > are committed to supporting the Linux kernel being built with Clang. > > I can see both sides where eventually a long-requested feature-request > should come to a head, especially with good evidence ( > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/2/14/895), but just as you wouldn't accept a > patch that doesn't compile with GCC, I'd like to request that we don't > merge patches that fail to compile with Clang (or at least start to think > what that might look like).
Again, I ask what the plans are for asm-cc-output, hard depending on that is a few years out I imagine, but if you don't promise feature parity for all the features we use, I can see this all happening again. Also, it would be good to get input on the whole memory model situation; esp. with people looking to do LTO builds, the C/C++ memory model can cause us quite some grief, for specifics I feel we should start a new thread. But this is another issue that's been raised several times without feedback.