From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Behan Webster Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] x86 kbuild: LLVMLinux: More cc-options added for clang Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:44:15 -0800 Message-ID: <530D46EF.6010103@converseincode.com> References: <1393376923-21892-1-git-send-email-behanw@converseincode.com> <1393376923-21892-6-git-send-email-behanw@converseincode.com> <530D4445.8060304@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <530D4445.8060304@zytor.com> Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "H. Peter Anvin" , mmarek@suse.cz, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org, sparse@chrisli.org Cc: linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, dwmw2@infradead.org, pageexec@freemail.hu, =?UTF-8?B?SmFuLVNpbW9uIE3Dtmxs?= =?UTF-8?B?ZXI=?= , Mark Charlebois List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org On 02/25/14 17:32, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 02/25/2014 05:08 PM, behanw@converseincode.com wrote: >> >> +# enforce no-sse for clang >> +ifneq ($(COMPILER),clang) >> + KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-mno-sse) >> + KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-mpreferred-stack-boundary=3) >> +endif >> + > I'm *very* confused. You're doing ifneq here but you're talking about > it as if you are *adding* them for Clang, also these options are already > added elsewhere (lines 57, 64, 86, 89) so why add them here? Because when David Woodhouse's recent .code16 changes made it upstream (which invalidated most of our original patch) it seems I didn't remove this properly from our patch as well. :) Thanks David for your patches. Thanks Peter for your sharp eyes! Another example of why reviewing code on the mailing list works so well. I will fix and resend. Behan -- Behan Webster behanw@converseincode.com