From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw1-x1130.google.com (mail-yw1-x1130.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1130]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45A3F39730CF for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 00:31:13 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 45A3F39730CF Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=google.com Received: by mail-yw1-x1130.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-3321c2a8d4cso236487607b3.5 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2022 17:31:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc; bh=kNL/WDFy5kCjDzETJwx9MKaUdTd4G5ytqhdX4hkGnEA=; b=m8z/IyNxJ/J+WxQdv/cvGw+2/t5UoT0vg+a64NFCufIOtaOs4PJTAdb1Qi/YYoX8R4 MHQvrJeB2DJD78KO7Ip9P0zkqlfs6DIVFr9QB/BKLNJd6NTUzIz/mq5opt4v3Djg4U1D a0cuvEtpCARedlshNMe3ws3q0HTevS6CB3tiOI3CSyd+BwT+2O07dyW5HJWOiTDrgXQh QM5H8uK8EUMXwzk3FsFr1uJBHVJag6eeimBUme/ngyBt1yWS4MIywtNdDtZd+WnfUvY3 QqSUDPLXaSsIzOXNgvz63//qBz6Yg6Zv5x5FrzotL7TbWR5fUPYc7c8bs8I7UvW6LXdz iSbg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=kNL/WDFy5kCjDzETJwx9MKaUdTd4G5ytqhdX4hkGnEA=; b=NzjLeFAAnoGDg++i+Krv6cenbpeyUMHNzZq5/e/d3Z7YSNesls5NLDmLvVj3damZpQ IWx3FIxORpOjpUUkAHQHlFK2hAEqD2g0ZqUM8VvpZMQc007b6FvLY5fzbv7E6KsczBDd QVD+X4WD90IC7dEe9UpxfDLpmfjFJCLr4D4rMPxigFCjg/geoRTFmm8TJfNa/m1uTWBh Jqytt6eYMad+UP+z1HmEbcQ8xJPC4yN27AI4r8EAZ4TXOXUtU8s3mCNkvBH+vsq+Koy3 kO8Wtjjyvm9U+wTGxsDHpMGrmumbia9fD+HxMVYhB+UHcJCb3Z1bHMh46Wv23b7PzRXL jtJQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo3hRJY54yHR1zW8emu2RPmijfglP03SIKsE0mpzfT6Krdtzka8U KBzGqT7FGX1c9nIUsOKOSosbN83b2Xnz6XCuViweUg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR5svFCwB47ss2AhfJeqoe5H6mPJ6NtO2B3KVX6fIi3O6PmrU76nLB1i5mP2gIkDElvuE/0LrQbb5ewVce7PLqw= X-Received: by 2002:a81:5a56:0:b0:33b:52a8:c360 with SMTP id o83-20020a815a56000000b0033b52a8c360mr11357148ywb.329.1661819471829; Mon, 29 Aug 2022 17:31:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87edwyst58.fsf@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <87edwyst58.fsf@oracle.com> From: Fangrui Song Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 17:31:00 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [COMMITTED] bpf: define __bpf__ as well as __BPF__ as a target macro To: "Jose E. Marchesi" Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-25.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH,GIT_PATCH_0,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL,USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL 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 Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 1:16 PM Jose E. Marchesi via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > LLVM defines both __bpf__ and __BPF_ as target macros. > GCC was defining only __BPF__. > > This patch defines __bpf__ as a target macro for BPF. > Tested in bpf-unknown-none. > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > * config/bpf/bpf.cc (bpf_target_macros): Define __bpf__ as a > target macro. > --- > gcc/config/bpf/bpf.cc | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/gcc/config/bpf/bpf.cc b/gcc/config/bpf/bpf.cc > index 7e37e080808..9cb56cfb287 100644 > --- a/gcc/config/bpf/bpf.cc > +++ b/gcc/config/bpf/bpf.cc > @@ -291,6 +291,7 @@ void > bpf_target_macros (cpp_reader *pfile) > { > builtin_define ("__BPF__"); > + builtin_define ("__bpf__"); > > if (TARGET_BIG_ENDIAN) > builtin_define ("__BPF_BIG_ENDIAN__"); > -- > 2.30.2 > Having multiple choices in this case seems to just add confusion to users and making code search slightly more inconvenient. How much code uses LLVM specific __bpf__? Can it be migrated? Should LLVM undefine the macro instead?