Re: [GIT PULL v2] Kbuild updates for v5.15-rc1

[Nathan Chancellor]

On 9/3/2021 3:53 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:> On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 4:31 
PM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I fixed the warnings observed in the previous PR.
>
> Ok, let's try it again.
>
> >   - Add <linux/stdarg.h> to the kernel source instead of borrowing
> >     <stdarg.h> from the compiler.
>
> So I certainly agree with the reasoning, but this worries me a bit.
>
> stdarg is truly intimately an internal compiler file, in ways that
> stddef (to pick another example) isn't.
>
> Yeah, yeah, offsetof() is "kind of compiler internal", and we end up
> using __compiler_offsetof(), but in the absence of that we *can* just
> do it by hand. So offsetof() really is one of those things where we
> can just do our own version if some compiler is being difficult.
>
> But va_start and friends absolutely *must* match the exact compiler version.
>
> It does look like both gcc and clang have just standardized on using
> __builtin_xyz for all the different stdarg things, and so I approve of
> what that <linux/stdarg.h> ended up looking like.
>
> But at the same time, it does make me go "ok, this is a big new
> assumption that we've consciously avoided for a long time".
>
> Nick is already on the cc here for other reasons, but let's add the
> clang-built list and Nathan explicitly. Because this basically
> codifies that
>
>      typedef __builtin_va_list va_list;
>      #define va_start(v, l)  __builtin_va_start(v, l)
>      #define va_end(v)       __builtin_va_end(v)
>      #define va_arg(v, T)    __builtin_va_arg(v, T)
>      #define va_copy(d, s)   __builtin_va_copy(d, s)
>
> being the way all the supported compilers work.
>
> Did people talk to any gcc maintainers too? We don't have the same
> kind of "gcc kernel people" list or contacts. The above builtins have
> been the case for a long long time for gcc, so I don't think it's
> wrong or likely to change, but I think it would be a good thing to
> just make compiler people aware of how we're now relying on that
> explicitly.

We set up the linux-toolchains mailing list after Plumbers 2020 to have 
a common place that kernel developers can bring issues and discussion to 
both clang and GCC folks. I am not sure who exactly from the GCC world 
is subscribed but I have added it now to see.

> (Side note: Linux using the compiler <stdarg.h> goes so far back that
> it very much predates all those nice builtins. I still have memories
> of <stdarg.h> being a collection of nasty per-architecture messes back
> in the bad old days. So I'm actually happy we can do this now, but
> there most definitely was a time when we really really had to use the
> compiler-provided stdarg.h).

Cheers,
Nathan