On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 11:28:17AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 5/18/21 2:43 AM, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > On 5/17/2021 5:38 PM, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote: > >> On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 11:34:49PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > >>> This should work I think: > >> > >> compiled well with clang-10.0.1, clang-11.0.0, > >> and gcc-10.2.0 with x86_64 default config. > >> > >> is the condition CONFIG_CLANG_VERSION > 110000, > >> not including 110000 it self? > > Good spot. Thanks! > > Ah sorry, that should definitely be >= :( > > > > That is what I get for writing an email that late... in reality, it probably > > won't matter due to the availability of 11.0.1 and 11.1.0 but it should > > absolutely be changed. > > > > I have not given Nick's patch a go yet but would something like this be > > acceptable? > > Yes. You mean Nick's patch to added with Nathan's code? I'm not sure we need this, but will add it if you can accept it. I'll send fixup patch soon. tell me if I can improve anything on it. Thanks, Hyeonggon
