Messages in this thread | | | From | Matthew Maurer <> | Date | Mon, 11 Dec 2023 08:11:40 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86/Kconfig: rust: Patchable function Rust compat |
| |
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 7:36 AM Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 4:08 PM Matthew Maurer <mmaurer@google.com> wrote: > > > > + def_bool $(rs-option,-Zpatchable-function-entry=16,16) > > We don't have `rs-option` in mainline yet -- missing dependency? We > will likely eventually need it, but currently we only support a single > Rust version anyway, so we could add it (and the flag check itself) > when we upgrade (especially if it is going to be supported soon). Sorry, I just realized this was only in a local patch. I hadn't sent it previously because, as you pointed out, we currently only support one compiler revision.
I was taking this approach because Android's compilers can have patches backported onto them when needed, so our 1.73.0 could have this flag and make use of it. > > > Speaking of which, I can't find the flag in upstream Rust (i.e. > outside the LLVM submodule), and I couldn't find a PR adding it. Could > you please add a `Link:` tag to the tracking issue / PR / ... if it is > submitted / when it is submitted? Or am I very confused? I haven't uploaded it yet. I'm hoping to send it up later today. I can wait until it's uploaded for a v2 of the patch series so I can link to it directly. > > Cheers, > Miguel
If I don't get the PR for `-Zpatchable-function-entry` done in a timely fashion, I'll send up an alternate version of this patch that just makes it depend on !RUST, as this can currently cause random runtime failures if features which assume patchable entry are used with Rust.
Re: Martin's comments (unfortunately they aren't on the same email so I can't reply inline) would you like me to file an issue against the R4L repository about this before sending a v2? I thought that repository was just for staging/discussion, and this didn't seem likely to need it.
| |