From: "Thomas Weißschuh" <linux@weissschuh.net>
To: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Nicolas Schier <nsc@kernel.org>,
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@orcam.me.uk>,
Nick Huang <sef1548@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts: headers_install.sh: Normalize __ASSEMBLY__ to __ASSEMBLER__
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2026 20:58:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a31f2655-2ce8-4029-a63d-321c849730f7@t-8ch.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260324183501.GA3704429@ax162>
On 2026-03-24 11:35:01-0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 06:05:34PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > On 2026-03-13 16:56:18-0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > > It sounds like the "< GCC 3.0" part of that might not be true based on
> > > Maciej's research?
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/alpine.DEB.2.21.2603101412520.63708@angie.orcam.me.uk/
> >
> > Yes, indeed. In my opinion the consistency aspect is still sufficient
> > to have this change. What do you think?
>
> Yes, I think so. Will you keep it as going from __ASSEMBLY__ to
> __ASSEMBLER__? It probably makes more sense that way given there should
> be no regressions on the compiler side and that is the intended end
> result?
I would have stuck to the old name '__ASSEMBLY__', just for robustness
and because we are late in the cycle.
Then we can switch it early in the next cycle.
Thomas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-24 19:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-09 15:58 Thomas Weißschuh
2026-03-13 23:56 ` Nathan Chancellor
2026-03-24 17:05 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2026-03-24 18:35 ` Nathan Chancellor
2026-03-24 19:58 ` Thomas Weißschuh [this message]
2026-06-13 10:13 ` Nicolas Schier
2026-06-13 16:57 ` Nathan Chancellor
2026-07-16 10:24 ` Thomas Huth
2026-07-16 16:40 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2026-07-16 18:16 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2026-07-17 15:25 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2026-07-16 18:52 ` Thomas Huth
2026-07-17 15:28 ` Thomas Weißschuh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=a31f2655-2ce8-4029-a63d-321c849730f7@t-8ch.de \
--to=linux@weissschuh.net \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=macro@orcam.me.uk \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=nsc@kernel.org \
--cc=sef1548@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox