On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:08:13 PM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Paul Moore <p...@paul-moore.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 09:25:30 PM Gideon Israel Dsouza wrote: > >> To increase compiler portability there is <linux/compiler.h> which > >> provides convenience macros for various gcc constructs. Eg: __packed > >> for __attribute__((packed)). > >> > >> This patch is part of a large task I've taken to clean the gcc > >> specific attributes and use the the macros instead. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Gideon Israel Dsouza <gidisr...@gmail.com> > >> --- > >> > >> security/selinux/include/security.h | 3 ++- > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > From what I can tell this should still work with both the LLVM and Intel > > compilers, is that correct? > > That's the idea of the compiler-agnostic attribute macros.
I just wanted to make sure as I personally only really use gcc and don't pretend to be up on all the details regarding other compilers. > Interestingly, only include/linux/compiler-gcc.h defines __packed. >From what I could tell by looking at the code, the other compilers all define __GNUC__ so they get the __packed macro as part of the gcc configuration. I believe the LLVM and Intel compilers would only need to redefine __packed if they wanted/needed a different definition. > As it's already in heavy use, I can only assume both LLVM and the Intel > compilers handle both "__packed" (without a special definition) and the > gcc-specific "__attribute__((packed))". Yep, seems reasonable. I'll go ahead and apply the patch. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
