Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 23:20:48 -0800 From: Andre McCurdy <armccurdy@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: respect both __ARM_ARCH_6KZ__ and __ARM_ARCH_6ZK__ macros On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 09:57:55PM -0800, Andre McCurdy wrote: >> 6KZ is the correct form, 6ZK is a gcc specific historical typo. >> Respect both for the widest compatibility with clang and older >> versions of gcc. > > Probably ok, but is it needed? As far as I know, __ARM_ARCH_6ZK__ is gcc specific and clang only ever defines __ARM_ARCH_6KZ__. Older versions of gcc only define __ARM_ARCH_6ZK__ and newer versions of gcc define both __ARM_ARCH_6KZ__ and __ARM_ARCH_6ZK__. > Ideally we would just use > __ARM_ARCH>=N, but old gcc lacked __ARM_ARCH, thus necessitating all > the awful cases. In atomic_arch.h, replacing the current ARMv6 tests with __ARM_ARCH >= 6 would be OK (if we could rely on __ARM_ARCH). For pthread_arch.h, there are ARMv6 cores which lack the c13 coprocessor thread and process ID registers so __ARM_ARCH >= 6 wouldn't be fine grained enough.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ