From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC v1 0/8] x86/init: Linux linker tables Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:56:35 -0800 Message-ID: <56A17033.4090709@zytor.com> References: <1450217797-19295-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <56731D32.4040900@zytor.com> <20151217234625.GM20409@wotan.suse.de> <56738AAF.2080601@zytor.com> <56738E29.3070605@zytor.com> <56A13D42.7040500@zytor.com> <20160121213732.GG15622@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Michael Brown Cc: Peter Senna Tschudin , Andrey Ryabinin , Jan Beulich , qiuxishi@huawei.com, Boris Ostrovsky , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , joro@8bytes.org, X86 ML , Ingo Molnar , aryabinin@virtuozzo.com, Michael Matz , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , andreyknvl@google.com, Rusty Russell , Michal Marek , Borislav Petkov , Thomas Gleixner , Valentin Rothberg , Juergen Gross , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Andy Lutomirski , long.wanglong@huawei.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 01/21/16 14:25, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk > wrote: >>> Sure, do we know if that ICC compatible? Do we care? There are a >>> series of ICC hacks put in place on ipxe's original solution which >>> I've folded in, it seems that works but if we care about ICC those >>> folks should perhaps help review as well. >> >> I didn't know the kernel could even be compiled with ICC? Thought >> only GCC worked? > > I'm happy with that, just wanted to make sure I raise the flag concern > given the icc hacks on the linker tables. > >> Anyhow - it may be that those fixes were for quite old ICC versions. >> Does the latest one manifest these oddities? > > I am not sure, I yield to Michael as the author of the original ICC > compatibility pieces. If we don't care about ICC let me know and I'll > just drop the stuff. In lack of such statements I'll just keep the > work arounds in place, but I'm more than trilled to drop it. > In general we let the ICC and Clang/LLVM teams communicate with out a post facto. We can't just guess what their requirements are, especially since they are likely to change between revisions. -hpa