[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJ86T=ViXCCtQ3RajsF+hrDcEQo5j_MHK23t4NmbUVreKdP2+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 23:20:48 -0800
From: Andre McCurdy <armccurdy@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: respect both __ARM_ARCH_6KZ__ and
__ARM_ARCH_6ZK__ macros
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 09:57:55PM -0800, Andre McCurdy wrote:
>> 6KZ is the correct form, 6ZK is a gcc specific historical typo.
>> Respect both for the widest compatibility with clang and older
>> versions of gcc.
>
> Probably ok, but is it needed?
As far as I know, __ARM_ARCH_6ZK__ is gcc specific and clang only ever
defines __ARM_ARCH_6KZ__. Older versions of gcc only define
__ARM_ARCH_6ZK__ and newer versions of gcc define both
__ARM_ARCH_6KZ__ and __ARM_ARCH_6ZK__.
> Ideally we would just use
> __ARM_ARCH>=N, but old gcc lacked __ARM_ARCH, thus necessitating all
> the awful cases.
In atomic_arch.h, replacing the current ARMv6 tests with __ARM_ARCH >=
6 would be OK (if we could rely on __ARM_ARCH).
For pthread_arch.h, there are ARMv6 cores which lack the c13
coprocessor thread and process ID registers so __ARM_ARCH >= 6
wouldn't be fine grained enough.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
