On Tue, 2018-08-21 at 09:32 -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:38 AM Dominique Martinet > <asmad...@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 ? http://releases.llvm.org/ vs https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html So if something other than 6.0.x is required, then some additional check should probably be added to compiler-clang.h as well.
