[PATCH v3 1/2] Makefile: Fix -mno-save-restore compile warning with CLANG

[Xiang W]

在 2021-12-02星期四的 15:12 +0000，Jessica Clarke写道：
> On 2 Dec 2021, at 14:28, Xiang W <wxjstz at 126.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 在 2021-12-02星期四的 17:59 +0530，Anup Patel写道：
> > > The riscv target of CLANG does not support -m(no-)save-restore
> > > option
> > > so we get compile warnings. This patch fixes compile warning by
> > > using
> > > -m(no-)save-restore option only for GCC.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <anup.patel at wdc.com>
> > 
> > ➜  /tmp clang -target riscv64 -mno-save-restore -O2 -S test.c
> > ➜  /tmp clang -target riscv64 -msave-restore -O2 -S test.c 
> > ➜  /tmp clang --version                                      
> > Debian clang version 11.0.1-2
> > Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
> > Thread model: posix
> > InstalledDir: /usr/bin
> > ➜  /tmp lsb_release -a
> > No LSB modules are available.
> > Distributor ID: Debian
> > Description:    Debian GNU/Linux 11 (bullseye)
> > Release:        11
> > Codename:       bullseye
> > ➜  /tmp
> > 
> > clang supports -m(no-)save-restore option on my computer
> 
> Yes, Clang 11 and above support -m(no-)save-restore. Clang 9 and 10
> support the driver option but were buggy and would cause the backend
> to
> give several warnings even if you just gave -mno-save-restore
> (https://reviews.llvm.org/D64008, which did make it into Clang 9, was
> not a complete fix for that, see my comment there). Clang 8 and below
> didn’t support the option in the driver, but the RISCV backend only
> graduated from experimental status in Clang 9 so, whilst it was in
> relatively decent shape before then, such versions should probably be
> discouraged.
> 
> In theory not passing the option is fine, there isn’t currently a way
> to configure Clang to default to -msave-restore other than patching
> it,
> though only skipping it for Clang 10 and below would be preferable.
> Either way the commit message needs updating.
> 
> Or you could just say it’s not worth caring and leave the warnings
> for
> Clang 9 and 10; with time they’ll stop being relevant, and they’re
> stderr output, not real diagnostics, so -Werror doesn’t make them
> fatal.
> That’s probably the approach I’d take, but I don’t have to work with
> old versions of Clang on RISC-V.
> 
> Jess

Thanks for the reply.

Regards,
Xiang W