Re: [PATCH] remove old GCC version implementation
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:15 PM Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > > GCC 4.6 is the minimum supported now. > > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Malaterre > --- > scripts/mod/file2alias.c | 6 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/scripts/mod/file2alias.c b/scripts/mod/file2alias.c > index 28a61665bb9c..4b59564d4706 100644 > --- a/scripts/mod/file2alias.c > +++ b/scripts/mod/file2alias.c > @@ -83,11 +83,7 @@ extern struct devtable *__start___devtable[], > *__stop___devtable[]; > #endif /* __MACH__ */ > > #if !defined(__used) > -# if __GNUC__ == 3 && __GNUC_MINOR__ < 3 > -# define __used __attribute__((__unused__)) > -# else > -# define __used __attribute__((__used__)) > -# endif > +#define __used __attribute__((__used__)) > #endif Superseded by: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10693483/ > /* Define a variable f that holds the value of field f of struct devid > -- > 2.11.0 >
Re: [PATCH] remove old GCC version implementation
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:15 PM Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > > GCC 4.6 is the minimum supported now. > > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Malaterre > --- > scripts/mod/file2alias.c | 6 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/scripts/mod/file2alias.c b/scripts/mod/file2alias.c > index 28a61665bb9c..4b59564d4706 100644 > --- a/scripts/mod/file2alias.c > +++ b/scripts/mod/file2alias.c > @@ -83,11 +83,7 @@ extern struct devtable *__start___devtable[], > *__stop___devtable[]; > #endif /* __MACH__ */ > > #if !defined(__used) > -# if __GNUC__ == 3 && __GNUC_MINOR__ < 3 > -# define __used __attribute__((__unused__)) > -# else > -# define __used __attribute__((__used__)) > -# endif > +#define __used __attribute__((__used__)) > #endif Superseded by: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10693483/ > /* Define a variable f that holds the value of field f of struct devid > -- > 2.11.0 >
Re: [PATCH] remove old GCC version implementation
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:14 PM Masahiro Yamada
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 8:28 PM Miguel Ojeda
> wrote:
> >
> > By the way, is it possible that scripts/ and similar stuff uses
> > directly include/linux/compiler_attributes.h (whenever it hits
> > mainline, see
> > https://github.com/ojeda/linux/blob/compiler-attributes/include/linux/compiler_attributes.h
> > )? It is a header that does not depend on anything, so it could easily
> > be shared; and would avoid having to maintain two sets of attributes.
> > Let me know, I can take a look at it if you think it is a good idea.
Landed a couple of weeks ago.
> No.
> I want to share a header file between kernel and host-tools
> only when we need to do so.
>
> In this case, it is wrong to use the linker magic for the host tool
> if you look at the so ugly #if defined(__MACH__) part.
Do you mean this line?
#define SECTION(name) __attribute__((section("__TEXT, " #name)))
I would say having exceptions is fine, i.e. the idea was to reduce
"duplicated" definitions. In this case, the #define has a different
name and style, so I would say it is clear.
Anyway, if the policy is not sharing headers at all, that is fine!
Cheers,
Miguel
Re: [PATCH] remove old GCC version implementation
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:14 PM Masahiro Yamada
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 8:28 PM Miguel Ojeda
> wrote:
> >
> > By the way, is it possible that scripts/ and similar stuff uses
> > directly include/linux/compiler_attributes.h (whenever it hits
> > mainline, see
> > https://github.com/ojeda/linux/blob/compiler-attributes/include/linux/compiler_attributes.h
> > )? It is a header that does not depend on anything, so it could easily
> > be shared; and would avoid having to maintain two sets of attributes.
> > Let me know, I can take a look at it if you think it is a good idea.
Landed a couple of weeks ago.
> No.
> I want to share a header file between kernel and host-tools
> only when we need to do so.
>
> In this case, it is wrong to use the linker magic for the host tool
> if you look at the so ugly #if defined(__MACH__) part.
Do you mean this line?
#define SECTION(name) __attribute__((section("__TEXT, " #name)))
I would say having exceptions is fine, i.e. the idea was to reduce
"duplicated" definitions. In this case, the #define has a different
name and style, so I would say it is clear.
Anyway, if the policy is not sharing headers at all, that is fine!
Cheers,
Miguel
Re: [PATCH] remove old GCC version implementation
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 8:28 PM Miguel Ojeda wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:18 PM Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > > > > GCC 4.6 is the minimum supported now. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Malaterre > > --- > > scripts/mod/file2alias.c | 6 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/scripts/mod/file2alias.c b/scripts/mod/file2alias.c > > index 28a61665bb9c..4b59564d4706 100644 > > --- a/scripts/mod/file2alias.c > > +++ b/scripts/mod/file2alias.c > > @@ -83,11 +83,7 @@ extern struct devtable *__start___devtable[], > > *__stop___devtable[]; > > #endif /* __MACH__ */ > > > > #if !defined(__used) > > -# if __GNUC__ == 3 && __GNUC_MINOR__ < 3 > > -# define __used __attribute__((__unused__)) > > -# else > > -# define __used __attribute__((__used__)) > > -# endif > > +#define __used __attribute__((__used__)) > > #endif > > > > Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda > > By the way, is it possible that scripts/ and similar stuff uses > directly include/linux/compiler_attributes.h (whenever it hits > mainline, see > https://github.com/ojeda/linux/blob/compiler-attributes/include/linux/compiler_attributes.h > )? It is a header that does not depend on anything, so it could easily > be shared; and would avoid having to maintain two sets of attributes. > Let me know, I can take a look at it if you think it is a good idea. No. I want to share a header file between kernel and host-tools only when we need to do so. In this case, it is wrong to use the linker magic for the host tool if you look at the so ugly #if defined(__MACH__) part. > Cheers, > Miguel -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
Re: [PATCH] remove old GCC version implementation
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 8:28 PM Miguel Ojeda wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:18 PM Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > > > > GCC 4.6 is the minimum supported now. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Malaterre > > --- > > scripts/mod/file2alias.c | 6 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/scripts/mod/file2alias.c b/scripts/mod/file2alias.c > > index 28a61665bb9c..4b59564d4706 100644 > > --- a/scripts/mod/file2alias.c > > +++ b/scripts/mod/file2alias.c > > @@ -83,11 +83,7 @@ extern struct devtable *__start___devtable[], > > *__stop___devtable[]; > > #endif /* __MACH__ */ > > > > #if !defined(__used) > > -# if __GNUC__ == 3 && __GNUC_MINOR__ < 3 > > -# define __used __attribute__((__unused__)) > > -# else > > -# define __used __attribute__((__used__)) > > -# endif > > +#define __used __attribute__((__used__)) > > #endif > > > > Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda > > By the way, is it possible that scripts/ and similar stuff uses > directly include/linux/compiler_attributes.h (whenever it hits > mainline, see > https://github.com/ojeda/linux/blob/compiler-attributes/include/linux/compiler_attributes.h > )? It is a header that does not depend on anything, so it could easily > be shared; and would avoid having to maintain two sets of attributes. > Let me know, I can take a look at it if you think it is a good idea. No. I want to share a header file between kernel and host-tools only when we need to do so. In this case, it is wrong to use the linker magic for the host tool if you look at the so ugly #if defined(__MACH__) part. > Cheers, > Miguel -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
Re: [PATCH] remove old GCC version implementation
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:18 PM Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > > GCC 4.6 is the minimum supported now. > > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Malaterre > --- > scripts/mod/file2alias.c | 6 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/scripts/mod/file2alias.c b/scripts/mod/file2alias.c > index 28a61665bb9c..4b59564d4706 100644 > --- a/scripts/mod/file2alias.c > +++ b/scripts/mod/file2alias.c > @@ -83,11 +83,7 @@ extern struct devtable *__start___devtable[], > *__stop___devtable[]; > #endif /* __MACH__ */ > > #if !defined(__used) > -# if __GNUC__ == 3 && __GNUC_MINOR__ < 3 > -# define __used __attribute__((__unused__)) > -# else > -# define __used __attribute__((__used__)) > -# endif > +#define __used __attribute__((__used__)) > #endif > Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda By the way, is it possible that scripts/ and similar stuff uses directly include/linux/compiler_attributes.h (whenever it hits mainline, see https://github.com/ojeda/linux/blob/compiler-attributes/include/linux/compiler_attributes.h )? It is a header that does not depend on anything, so it could easily be shared; and would avoid having to maintain two sets of attributes. Let me know, I can take a look at it if you think it is a good idea. Cheers, Miguel
Re: [PATCH] remove old GCC version implementation
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:18 PM Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > > GCC 4.6 is the minimum supported now. > > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Malaterre > --- > scripts/mod/file2alias.c | 6 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/scripts/mod/file2alias.c b/scripts/mod/file2alias.c > index 28a61665bb9c..4b59564d4706 100644 > --- a/scripts/mod/file2alias.c > +++ b/scripts/mod/file2alias.c > @@ -83,11 +83,7 @@ extern struct devtable *__start___devtable[], > *__stop___devtable[]; > #endif /* __MACH__ */ > > #if !defined(__used) > -# if __GNUC__ == 3 && __GNUC_MINOR__ < 3 > -# define __used __attribute__((__unused__)) > -# else > -# define __used __attribute__((__used__)) > -# endif > +#define __used __attribute__((__used__)) > #endif > Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda By the way, is it possible that scripts/ and similar stuff uses directly include/linux/compiler_attributes.h (whenever it hits mainline, see https://github.com/ojeda/linux/blob/compiler-attributes/include/linux/compiler_attributes.h )? It is a header that does not depend on anything, so it could easily be shared; and would avoid having to maintain two sets of attributes. Let me know, I can take a look at it if you think it is a good idea. Cheers, Miguel
