Hi Nathan, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I saw through the LLVM issue above that one other patch is necessary to > fix an issue in the vDSO [1], which I applied in testing this one. Mhmm, I did not submit that yet because I don't feel fully confident with it. I think it should probably live in include/vdso/math64.h as plain C code instead of the current asm version, but I don't know what is the proper way to check the current environment's word size. Is checking BITS_PER_LONG enough, or should I do it in another way? > I noticed in applying that change that you appear to be working on 6.1, > which is fine for now, but you'll need another diff once you get to a > newer version, as we stopped using CROSS_COMPILE to set clang's > '--target=' value: > > diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.clang b/scripts/Makefile.clang > index 6c23c6af797f..2435efae67f5 100644 > --- a/scripts/Makefile.clang > +++ b/scripts/Makefile.clang > @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_mips := mipsel-linux-gnu > CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_powerpc := powerpc64le-linux-gnu > CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_riscv := riscv64-linux-gnu > CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_s390 := s390x-linux-gnu > +CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_sparc := sparc64-linux-gnu > CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_x86 := x86_64-linux-gnu > CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_um := $(CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_$(SUBARCH)) > CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS := $(CLANG_TARGET_FLAGS_$(SRCARCH)) Yeah, I was working with 6.1 at that time since it's the version that my distro have installed for me. Now this is more of a workflow question, but this means I should submit a v2 with this change merged in with mine too, right? And thanks for the feedback!
