Re: [PATCH 2/2] linker_lists: Rework start/end macros to not rely on undefined behavior

On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 02:54:51PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote: > Per the GCC bug listed below, the way we do linker lists is relying on > undefined behavior that seems to work in gcc, but doesn't always work in > clang. Andrew suggests rewriting our start/end macros in a different way > (as implemented

Re: [PATCH 2/2] linker_lists: Rework start/end macros to not rely on undefined behavior

On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 11:54 AM Tom Rini wrote: > > Per the GCC bug listed below, the way we do linker lists is relying on > undefined behavior that seems to work in gcc, but doesn't always work in > clang. Andrew suggests rewriting our start/end macros in a different way > (as implemented here,

Re: [PATCH 2/2] linker_lists: Rework start/end macros to not rely on undefined behavior

On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 at 07:55, Tom Rini wrote: > > Per the GCC bug listed below, the way we do linker lists is relying on > undefined behavior that seems to work in gcc, but doesn't always work in > clang. Andrew suggests rewriting our start/end macros in a different way > (as implemented here, fro

[PATCH 2/2] linker_lists: Rework start/end macros to not rely on undefined behavior

Per the GCC bug listed below, the way we do linker lists is relying on undefined behavior that seems to work in gcc, but doesn't always work in clang. Andrew suggests rewriting our start/end macros in a different way (as implemented here, from what he said in comment 1) to avoid these problems. Re