On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 11:03:19PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:06 PM 'Nick Desaulniers' via Clang Built > Linux <clang-built-li...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 12:21 PM Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote: > > > clang, I would suggest dropping your patch then, and instead adding > > > > I disagree. The minimum version of gcc required to build the kernel > > is 4.6, so the comment about older versions of gcc is irrelevant and > > should be removed. > > Sure, that's ok. It just feels wrong to remove a warning that points > to a real problem that still exists and can be detected at the moment. > > If we think that clang-9 is going to be fixed before its release, > the warning could be changed to test for that version as a minimum, > and point to the bugzilla entry for more details. > > Arnd
I just tested the arm64 implementation and it shows the same warnings about cost as arm. However, I see a warning as something that can be resolved by the user. The GCC warning's solution is to just use a newer version of GCC (something fairly easily attainable). This new warning currently has no solution other than don't use clang. It is up to you and Nick but I would say unless we are going to prioritize fixing this, we shouldn't add a warning for it. I'd say it is more appropriate to fix it then add a warning saying upgrade to this version to fix it, like the GCC one (though I don't necessarily hate adding the warning assuming that clang 9 will have it fixed). Cheers, Nathan