On 01/21/16 14:25, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> <konrad.w...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>> Sure, do we know if that ICC compatible? Do we care? There are a
>>> series of ICC hacks put in place on ipxe's original solution which
>>> I've folded in, it seems that works but if we care about ICC those
>>> folks should perhaps help review as well.
>>
>> I didn't know the kernel could even be compiled with ICC? Thought
>> only GCC worked?
>
> I'm happy with that, just wanted to make sure I raise the flag concern
> given the icc hacks on the linker tables.
>
>> Anyhow - it may be that those fixes were for quite old ICC versions.
>> Does the latest one manifest these oddities?
>
> I am not sure, I yield to Michael as the author of the original ICC
> compatibility pieces. If we don't care about ICC let me know and I'll
> just drop the stuff. In lack of such statements I'll just keep the
> work arounds in place, but I'm more than trilled to drop it.
>
In general we let the ICC and Clang/LLVM teams communicate with out a
post facto. We can't just guess what their requirements are, especially
since they are likely to change between revisions.
-hpa
