On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 01:34:07PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > 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. Ah, Okay! I sent the patch. Thanks, Hyeonggon
