On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> >> > Ideally we'd get the toolchain people to commit to supporting the
> >> > kernel
> >> > memory model along side the C11 one. That would help a ton.
> >>
> >> Does anyone from the kernel side participate in
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Nick Desaulniers
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 06:34:17PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 09:16:49AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Pet
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 05:23:52PM +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Paul E. McKenney
> > Sent: 20 November 2017 20:54
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 08:32:56PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 06:05:55PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > Although the current direction
From: Paul E. McKenney
> Sent: 20 November 2017 20:54
>
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 08:32:56PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 06:05:55PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > Although the current direction of the C++ committee is to prefer
> > > that dependencies are explicitly "
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 08:32:56PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 06:05:55PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Although the current direction of the C++ committee is to prefer
> > that dependencies are explicitly "marked", this is not deemed to be
> > acceptable for the kernel (
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 08:28:06PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 06:05:55PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > This is a thorny issue, but RCU (specifically rcu_dereference but probably
> > also some READ_ONCEs) relies on being able to utilise syntactic dependency
> > chains to
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 06:05:55PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> Although the current direction of the C++ committee is to prefer
> that dependencies are explicitly "marked", this is not deemed to be
> acceptable for the kernel (in other words, everything is always considered
> "marked").
Yeah, that
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 06:05:55PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> This is a thorny issue, but RCU (specifically rcu_dereference but probably
> also some READ_ONCEs) relies on being able to utilise syntactic dependency
> chains to order local accesses to shared variables.
Well, we used to have READ_ON
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 06:05:55PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> Please don't confuse this with a reluctance to support clang; I'm keen to
> see that supported,
As an aside; as long as clang doesn't do asm-goto and asm-flag-output
(as examples of features that clang lacks and developers have at tim
Hi Sami,
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 12:17:01PM -0800, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:13:07AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Ah, if "this patch set" meant "adding LTO", I stand corrected and I
> > apologize for my confusion.
>
> Again, I'm not proposing for LTO to be enabled by
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:13:07AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Ah, if "this patch set" meant "adding LTO", I stand corrected and I
> apologize for my confusion.
Again, I'm not proposing for LTO to be enabled by default. These patches
just make it possible to enable it. Are you saying the poss
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 06:45:08PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:39:51AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:16:22AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 06:34:17PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > >> So the problem is t
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:39:51AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:16:22AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 06:34:17PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >> So the problem is that its very very hard (and painful) to find these
> > >> bugs. Getti
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:16:22AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 06:34:17PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 09:16:49AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 06:34:17PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 09:16:49AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>> > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Peter Zijlstra
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 08:50:41
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 06:34:17PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 09:16:49AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Peter Zijlstra
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 08:50:41AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 09:16:49AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 08:50:41AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Peter Zijlstra
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Ideally we'd get the toolc
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 08:50:41AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> > Ideally we'd get the toolchain people to commit to supporting the kernel
>> > memory model along side the C1
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 08:50:41AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Ideally we'd get the toolchain people to commit to supporting the kernel
> > memory model along side the C11 one. That would help a ton.
>
> Does anyone from the kerne
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Ideally we'd get the toolchain people to commit to supporting the kernel
> memory model along side the C11 one. That would help a ton.
Does anyone from the kernel side participate in the C standardization process?
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 08:17:31AM -0800, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:58:11AM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > I'll be honest with you: I'm absolutely terrified about enabling this.
>
> That's understandable, I wouldn't want to enable this by default
> quite yet either. This pat
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:58:11AM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> I'll be honest with you: I'm absolutely terrified about enabling this.
That's understandable, I wouldn't want to enable this by default
quite yet either. This patch doesn't enable LTO for arm64, just makes
it possible to enable the fea
Hi Sami,
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 01:34:28PM -0800, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> Allow CONFIG_LTO_CLANG to be enabled for the architecture.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sami Tolvanen
> ---
> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> in
Allow CONFIG_LTO_CLANG to be enabled for the architecture.
Signed-off-by: Sami Tolvanen
---
arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
index 3a70f763e18a..58504327b9f6 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
@@
24 matches
Mail list logo
