Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add minimum clang/llvm version

[Nathan Chancellor]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 03:25:51PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> Based on a vote at the LLVM BoF at Plumbers 2020, we decided to start
> small, supporting just one formal upstream release of LLVM for now.
> 
> We can probably widen the support window of supported versions over
> time.  Also, note that LLVM's release process is different than GCC's.
> GCC tends to have 1 major release per year while releasing minor updates
> to the past 3 major versions.  LLVM tends to support one major release
> and one minor release every six months.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Note to reviewers: working remote, I'm having trouble testing/verifying
> that I have the RST links wired up correctly; I would appreciate it if
> someone is able to `make htmldocs` and check
> Documentation/output/process/changes.html properly links to
> Documentation/output/kbuild/llvm.html.

I ran 'make O=out htmldocs' and can confirm that the link works properly
in process/changes.html, pointing to kbuild/llvm.html.

>  Documentation/kbuild/llvm.rst     |  2 ++
>  Documentation/process/changes.rst | 10 ++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 12 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/kbuild/llvm.rst b/Documentation/kbuild/llvm.rst
> index 2aac50b97921..70ec6e9a183b 100644
> --- a/Documentation/kbuild/llvm.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/kbuild/llvm.rst
> @@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
> +.. _kbuild_llvm:
> +
>  ==============================
>  Building Linux with Clang/LLVM
>  ==============================
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/changes.rst b/Documentation/process/changes.rst
> index ee741763a3fc..6c580ef9f2a3 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/changes.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/changes.rst
> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ you probably needn't concern yourself with pcmciautils.
>          Program        Minimal version       Command to check the version
>  ====================== ===============  ========================================
>  GNU C                  4.9              gcc --version
> +Clang/LLVM (optional)  10.0.1           clang --version

Maybe it is worth making the "(optional)" a footnote like Sphinx? Seems
to just kind of stick out to me but I do not have a strong opinion
unless others do.

>  GNU make               3.81             make --version
>  binutils               2.23             ld -v
>  flex                   2.5.35           flex --version
> @@ -68,6 +69,15 @@ GCC
>  The gcc version requirements may vary depending on the type of CPU in your
>  computer.
>  
> +Clang/LLVM (optional)
> +---------------------
> +
> +The latest formal release of clang and LLVM utils (according to
> +`releases.llvm.org <https://releases.llvm.org>`_) are supported for building
> +kernels. Older releases aren't gauranteed to work, and we may drop workarounds
> +from the kernel that were used to support older versions. Please see additional
> +docs on :ref:`Building Linux with Clang/LLVM <kbuild_llvm>`.
> +

Do we maybe want to add a section for LLVM/clang in the "Getting updated
software" section? Maybe just a link to the existing section that we
have in kbuild/llvm.rst?

>  Make
>  ----
>  
> -- 
> 2.28.0.297.g1956fa8f8d-goog
> 

Regardless of the nits above:

Reviewed-and-tested-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@xxxxxxxxx>