From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pekka Enberg Subject: Re: linearize bug? Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 09:26:44 +0300 Message-ID: References: <4E588EB8.80808@garzik.org> <201108271334.17659.kdudka@redhat.com> <4E590F22.6030800@garzik.org> <4E594DAA.8060401@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: Received: from mail-gx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.161.174]:57780 "EHLO mail-gx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750922Ab1H1G0p (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Aug 2011 02:26:45 -0400 Received: by gxk21 with SMTP id 21so3985336gxk.19 for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 23:26:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E594DAA.8060401@garzik.org> Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Linus Torvalds , Kamil Dudka , Sparse Mailing-list On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> I disagree - mainly because I don't think we're interested in the back >> end, are we? >> >> If we were doing LLVM hacking, then I'd agree. But as it is, we're >> supposed to improve sparse, not LLVM, so we should make sure that the >> _sparse_ output makes sense, and LLVM is just a code generator, no? > > No idea Pekka's interest... > > In general, my own decade-long goal has been to be able to play with a > kernel compiler other than gcc. [snip] I'm also interested in hopefully being able to eventually compile the kernel with sparse. I'm not that interested in LLVM and really only picked it because it seems to be simplest solution for now. I do agree with Linus that we should improve sparse rather than rely on LLVM for everything. Pekka