Re: [PATCH] remove old GCC version implementation

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:14 PM Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 8:28 PM Miguel Ojeda
> <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > By the way, is it possible that scripts/ and similar stuff uses
> > directly include/linux/compiler_attributes.h (whenever it hits
> > mainline, see https://github.com/ojeda/linux/blob/compiler-attributes/include/linux/compiler_attributes.h
> > )? It is a header that does not depend on anything, so it could easily
> > be shared; and would avoid having to maintain two sets of attributes.
> > Let me know, I can take a look at it if you think it is a good idea.

Landed a couple of weeks ago.

> No.
> I want to share a header file between kernel and host-tools
> only when we need to do so.
>
> In this case, it is wrong to use the linker magic for the host tool
> if you look at the so ugly #if defined(__MACH__) part.

Do you mean this line?

  #define SECTION(name)   __attribute__((section("__TEXT, " #name)))

I would say having exceptions is fine, i.e. the idea was to reduce
"duplicated" definitions. In this case, the #define has a different
name and style, so I would say it is clear.

Anyway, if the policy is not sharing headers at all, that is fine!

Cheers,
Miguel