From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF0192C for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 18:38:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43DAF21F for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 18:38:20 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 20:38:17 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <1469094899.120686.101.camel@infradead.org> Message-ID: References: <87inw1skws.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <1469094899.120686.101.camel@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] [TECH TOPIC] Support (or move towards to) LLVM List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 21 Jul 2016, David Woodhouse wrote: > Apart from resolutely not wanting to implement variable length arrays on > the stack, the LLVM folks actually seem quite keen to make things work. > I'm interested in the problem you report above.. and note the absence of > a bug number. Can you provide it? I am currently on vacation and on super-lousy internet connection, so looking through my archives is a bit complicated ... I *think* it started in "[PATCH] usbhid: Fix lockdep unannotated irqs-off warning" thread on lkml. In case you're not able to find it from there, I'll do my homework mid-next week when I am back properly online. Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs