From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932219AbbGTDra (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Jul 2015 23:47:30 -0400 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:33128 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932074AbbGTDr3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Jul 2015 23:47:29 -0400 Message-ID: <55AC6F46.80606@oracle.com> Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 23:47:18 -0400 From: Sasha Levin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rasmus Villemoes , mingo@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] compiler.h: enable builtin overflow checkers and add fallback code References: <1437347852-24921-1-git-send-email-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> In-Reply-To: <1437347852-24921-1-git-send-email-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/19/2015 07:17 PM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > Last year, Sasha Levin suggested adding wrappers for the > __builtin_*_overflow functions introduced with gcc 5.1 (based on > similar, but type-specific, functions in clang). This is another > attempt at providing such wrappers and fallback code for older compilers. What's the difference between this version and the one Linus essentially rejected? I still think it's a good idea, but I'm not sure if anything changed since last year. Thanks, Sasha