From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6E47134AE for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 09:48:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=66.111.4.29 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707126524; cv=none; b=NmucKSP/0LrXgnYExuVPnOOUseUQrCKqQfTP4XRx6onK6H/nuXqYjxwW8FqWBXb4uUpRWmdlHlyWZ6Vmr5evtzLOYzad4GO+9vazsZrumE8tzIHmeeusSgtOtpboSahqnR1hANZqcgLAv72CjqYtsGnQpZIh/+BgnENmd1StGrE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707126524; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Hf4odG5wn7R54sc/WswXFwxztiof6WIDGhFtOxaGJzc=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=i132xNf1F5XrQ4Rg35aQTQbZPJuLSpxwMeV+RI4FyNIxSBIue32hIlMQPofgEkSvDowS0hLdR4rduGfe/70dNiC3R5QT0jQ511Hdknpq0wPliTQJitvhQHErk2REiPMC5unNhum1sII0kI8NPYoMXY40lk8MGa5o1b1vCtUcm2E= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-m68k.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-m68k.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=JVQQRWEe; arc=none smtp.client-ip=66.111.4.29 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-m68k.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-m68k.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="JVQQRWEe" Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95CBB5C0112; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 04:48:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 05 Feb 2024 04:48:40 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm3; t=1707126520; x=1707212920; bh=4HXHrHNRaH/IGLDh84/hJNfQKsbt Ooowjsd4egH2tFE=; b=JVQQRWEeOYnEhibTNuIBXSMWoBRVPo9jQIn5cPeafI9B t2aqtg/oyijjW33uoMbiCMaiPTVr0nx07m5RPDE1WnkpYpFDga8RilOqjh0S6zU6 TxjgKabtOx+vNkMTnA0czdlykdQKLIkNFpT1b0sp5TE6YbWDyElhf3LiNP0ls9KE IcdzWpSeGKC9fztMKc9lNF9i8d9pdZWqYXN1tKLYtSSPecCdeIrjy99+9n9s5/Kp HUfYyx0L4nq3KGkIqVamdn0aD/TSauVorrkyLz65RhSlKnOGgOcEU27Jc/J7+WKD ckAR2DuhVzxooOymrNpUI1twU74iaJa9jg4q1Ips7w== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvkedrfedvtddgtdekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvfevufgjkfhfgggtsehttdertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefhihhnnhcu vfhhrghinhcuoehfthhhrghinheslhhinhhugidqmheikehkrdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpeelueehleehkefgueevtdevteejkefhffekfeffffdtgfejveekgeefvdeu heeuleenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe hfthhhrghinheslhhinhhugidqmheikehkrdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i58a146ae:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 04:48:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 20:48:52 +1100 (AEDT) From: Finn Thain To: Vincent MAILHOL cc: David Laight , Andrew Morton , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Yury Norov , Nick Desaulniers , Douglas Anderson , Kees Cook , Petr Mladek , Randy Dunlap , Zhaoyang Huang , Geert Uytterhoeven , Marco Elver , Brian Cain , Geert Uytterhoeven , Matthew Wilcox , "Paul E . McKenney" , "linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] m68k/bitops: use __builtin_{clz,ctzl,ffs} to evaluate constant expressions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00a7e866-23ff-fc63-b6df-364580f69c78@linux-m68k.org> References: <20221111081316.30373-1-mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr> <20240128050449.1332798-1-mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr> <20240128050449.1332798-3-mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr> <9d9be9dbe92f43d2a95d11d6b2f434c1@AcuMS.aculab.com> <77831c6f-7fc9-c42d-b29b-c3b2f3f5e687@linux-m68k.org> <002675b0-6976-9efa-6bc5-b8bad287a1d2@linux-m68k.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 5 Feb 2024, Vincent MAILHOL wrote: > > This is why I am asking whether or not clang support is important or not > for m68k. If you tell me it is not, then fine, I will remove all the asm > (by the way, the patch is already ready). But if there are even a few > users who care about clang for m68k, then I do not think we should > penalize them and I would not sign-off a change which negatively impacts > some users. > If clang support is important then clang's builtins are important. So why not improve those instead? That would resolve the issue in a win-win.