Re: [linux-next:master 4752/13171] error[E0609]: no field `__bindgen_anon_1` on type `bindings::kernel_param`

Miguel Ojeda
2025-12-04T12:24:19Z

On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 12:59 PM Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> + Any reason to use an unreleased clang version for this reports? Since clang-22
> is not officially released yet, issues seen with it seem lower priority than
> those reproduced with stable, released versions. Does it make sense to act
> on these kind of "bleeding edge" reports, or should we wait until they're
> confirmed on a stable release? Does 0day test both?

Some people in the kernel regularly test with unreleased compilers
(all GCC, Clang and Rust) in order to fix issues before those
compilers get actually released, e.g. ClangBuiltLinux for LLVM, I do
it for `rustc`, several people for GCC, etc.

So I guess the idea is similar for kernel test robot? There is value
on doing that, and whether one should act depends -- if it is close to
the release of the compiler, then it makes sense to try to figure out
what is breaking so that the compiler has a chance to fix it.
Otherwise, if nobody tries, we would get quite broken compilers (for
the kernel use case at least).

It is also why I think having at least a basic kernel build on the
upstream CIs of the compilers is a good idea (it already showed value
in upstream Rust and perhaps we should talk about it again in LPC for
Clang).

But, yeah, the reports can be confusing and reacting to them properly
does take time and effort (e.g. I need sometimes to bisect the
compiler etc.).

Does LKP try the bleeding edge versions only if a stable compiler
built successfully? That could perhaps help.

Andreas also suggested yesterday in our meeting to have such bleeding
edge reports perhaps more clearly marked or similar.

Cheers,
Miguel