Re: [PATCH] kernel: add support for gcc 5

[Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>]

On Do, 2014-09-04 at 23:37 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 09/04/2014 07:47 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 00:43 +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> >> > Most statements are already depending on GCC_VERSION, maybe we can just
> >> > unify all gcc specific headers to one, still trying to keep the file
> >> > organized? ;)
> > Maybe something like:
> > 
> > gnu development of gcc will be more frequent and the use of
> > compiler-gcc<major>.h likely will not be convenient anymore.
> > 
> > Integrate the individual compiler-gcc<major>.h files into
> > compiler-gcc.h.
> 
> Please no. We have a similar file we maintain in our team that's supposed to
> do something very similar for kernel versions. It goes all the way back to
> 2.6.9 and it's a *horrible* mess.
> 
> This is how compiler-gcc.h will end up looking in a while.

Something along these lines? We can make '4' a macro describing it
references the latest possible compiler-gccX.h file.

--- a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
+++ b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
@@ -103,7 +103,12 @@
 #define __gcc_header(x) #x
 #define _gcc_header(x) __gcc_header(linux/compiler-gcc##x.h)
 #define gcc_header(x) _gcc_header(x)
+
+#if __GNUC__ > 4
+#include gcc_header(4)
+#else
 #include gcc_header(__GNUC__)
+#endif
 
 #if !defined(__noclone)
 #define __noclone      /* not needed */


I still think we should start chaining newer gcc header files to
deduplicate the content. What do you think?

Bye,
Hannes