On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 6:43 PM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 5:42 AM Nick Desaulniers > <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > --param=allow-store-data-races=0 was renamed to --allow-store-data-races > > in the GCC 10 release. > > > > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile > > index 027fdf2a14fe..3e3fb4affba1 100644 > > --- a/Makefile > > +++ b/Makefile > > @@ -844,17 +847,17 @@ KBUILD_RUSTFLAGS += -Copt-level=z > > endif > > > > # Tell gcc to never replace conditional load with a non-conditional one > > -KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,--param=allow-store-data-races=0) > > +ifdef CONFIG_CC_IS_GCC > > > Can you insert a comment here? > > # GCC 10 renamed --param=allow-store-data-races=0 to --allow-store-data-races > > > It will remind us of dropping this conditional > in the (long long distant) future. > > > > > > +KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,--allow-store-data-races,--param=allow-store-data-races=0) > > KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fno-allow-store-data-races) > > +endif This report is confusing: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/202108160729.Lx0IJzq3-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ (csky gcc-11) >> csky-linux-gcc: error: unrecognized command-line option '--param=allow-store-data-races=0'; did you mean '--allow-store-data-races'? I wonder if cc-option detection for these is broken? Perhaps I should not touch these other than to wrap them in the CONFIG_CC_IS_GCC guard? (Either way, I need to send a v2 in response to Naresh's report as well. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+G9fYtPBp_-Ko_P7NuOX6vN9-66rjJuBt21h3arrLqEaQQn6w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ It seems that -mfentry wasn't implemented for s390-linux-gnu-gcc until gcc-9; so rather than remove top level support, perhaps a comment about gcc-9+ s390 having support will make grepping for it easier in the future). -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers
