From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg1-x52a.google.com (mail-pg1-x52a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52a]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7CEC3899424 for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2022 05:17:43 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org D7CEC3899424 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-pg1-x52a.google.com with SMTP id bh13so13321309pgb.4 for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 22:17:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=2yJuRIshNrOV+md5VYQAizOIgH2LljnEqf8vTzGQtoE=; b=Ps4NBjol3tQNhA04v048YMaw2UYzupVSOkiA8pUgUssi18vzbfm6U85bIgUxSFTHUK He1w/uLDVawrW/uJJTteaQe9EjwfHb1+xdzMSqX4KC9+PVpJYacYuaUi5w9qEHI7NvRN ZdoqvrpNGwj1gqy2S+rnWG8JqGWgs0sxGXP6SQY8w0EgN4zbLXEPb/8qLLbrHP6y5O9B ix1YtEbl6suGgyoqJ70BQ8M4+mUVmUvEstghgakqutJ1uwLMPuOafczAVB6S/ECqf067 MWJscMrnrpUSzXzN8QfgG0MDprmzmoTjIQzDg69deXRFpTBKvfxU5qCcG1hQvFerCnHr jojw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=2yJuRIshNrOV+md5VYQAizOIgH2LljnEqf8vTzGQtoE=; b=fj7VNLAaQVsB7tpozb5DQOd9OasVfg1k8bcMiiV0cMaqRJd3x6WuIFhgJ+z4QfI2Au wMw+3hfN0RGTqpKHrG8GjvuinK2dTvLof9XowcDeq5X9QZQGBYGvmc5Lla5g+gm6ychG ahPxBGhzABZ4eDhGU1AzfMVmT69DpjEME/pnlAcMzQ5Yn1PxOh6lh4M/IiPVK7hDAI7K 4atP6VxVPpk01lV74KTzUSN8WZ7QROv00uP1XBYiF0ti6AHGj5MYyZMAOI/jnEuXMA2Y CFqM8JFAt6AF4AqfYJr/uyEnh1cgTYqfGzqXT5n9qK1S8udNBRNzt39ahIjul+HFhr1D BNlg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo04obgavGwEvzHLEZioDE0mAm4ad0YhDK/fHuPtLY3UxpCDJ7bw etKGikBgE9TqwbQBF2BzTfU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR6KvY8OB6/LII+SMrOZ9jClhhEec2ARlpvEaJg7pN7NtWgsXhbAKL+cOwWKlRuPhf0oAmUXHA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:a05:b0:534:b1ad:cfac with SMTP id p5-20020a056a000a0500b00534b1adcfacmr35121824pfh.35.1663132662742; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 22:17:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from squeak.grove.modra.org (158.106.96.58.static.exetel.com.au. [58.96.106.158]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l12-20020a170903244c00b001743be790b4sm9464981pls.215.2022.09.13.22.17.41 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 13 Sep 2022 22:17:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by squeak.grove.modra.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A22541140320; Wed, 14 Sep 2022 14:47:39 +0930 (ACST) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2022 14:47:39 +0930 From: Alan Modra To: Tsukasa OI Cc: Jan Beulich , binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] bfd: Stop using -Wstack-usage=262144 when built with Clang Message-ID: References: <9edb72a280d3be93753afd29cfc2084d8a27fc14.1663073944.git.research_trasio@irq.a4lg.com> <077641fe-f70d-2f25-d539-50198eb97284@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3030.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 12:29:20AM +0900, Tsukasa OI via Binutils wrote: > On 2022/09/13 22:44, Jan Beulich wrote: > > On 13.09.2022 14:59, Tsukasa OI wrote: > >> Some components of GNU Binutils will pass "-Wstack-usage=262144" when > >> "GCC >= 5.0" is detected. However, Clang does not support "-Wstack-usage", > >> despite that related configuration part in bfd/warning.m4 handles the latest > >> Clang (15.0.0 as of this writing) as "GCC >= 5.0". > >> > >> The option "-Wstack-usage" was ignored when the first version of Clang is > >> released but even this "ignoring" behavior is removed before Clang 4.0.0. > >> So, if we give Clang "-Wstack-usage=262144", it generates a warning, making > >> the build failure. > > > > While not exactly the same, how about passing -Wframe-larger-than= when > > it's (new enough) Clang, instead of not passing any such option? > > That's a good idea. But if I do that, that would make another patchset > on top of this (not PATCH v2 of this). That's fair enough. The patch is OK, thanks. > We need to know a good value of -Wframe-larger-than= for Clang and > meanwhile, just removing the -Wstack-usage looks acceptable for me. For > now, that would be nice to have an approval to apply this patch as is. > > > > > Jan > > -- Alan Modra Australia Development Lab, IBM