On 5/18/21 1:18 PM, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote: > 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? No, I thought Nathan was asking about his own proposal. I don't think Nick's patch that adds 26 index solves the issue. Nathan's proposal fixed with '>=' is OK. > 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 >
