On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 21:54 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 09:02 -0400, Brian Gerst wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > * Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/bitsperlong.h > > > > b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/bitsperlong.h > > > > index b0ae1c4..217909b 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/bitsperlong.h > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/bitsperlong.h > > > > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ > > > > #ifndef __ASM_X86_BITSPERLONG_H > > > > #define __ASM_X86_BITSPERLONG_H > > > > > > > > -#ifdef __x86_64__ > > > > +#if defined(__x86_64__) && !defined(__ILP32__) > > > > # define __BITS_PER_LONG 64 > > > > > > Can we write this as: > > > > > > #ifdef __ILP64__ > > Assuming you meant __LP64__... > > > Do all versions of gcc/clang define that, even if x32 isn't > > supported? > > For gcc, it's been defined since 2003 (gcc 3.3): > https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=0bdab2d89e28ca4dc84f8f0fafed85a4822bca49 > > For clang, it's been defined since before its first public release: > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Basic/Targets.cpp?r1=38978&r2=38987&pathrev=161685 > > So gcc 3.1 and 3.2 didn't define it, but everything newer does.
As the kernel itself is supposed to still be compilable with gcc 3.2, I think this means that my patch has the right condition. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings When in doubt, use brute force. - Ken Thompson
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
