Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Avoid clang warnings around setjmp and longjmp

From: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"# 3.4.x" <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
	clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
	David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Avoid clang warnings around setjmp and longjmp
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 11:37:54 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190910183754.GA42190@archlinux-threadripper> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87mufcypf5.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 04:30:38AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 08:01:35AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 08:16:45AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> >> > From: Nathan Chancellor [mailto:natechancellor@gmail.com]
> >> > > Fair enough so I guess we are back to just outright disabling the
> >> > > warning.
> >> > 
> >> > Just disabling the warning won't stop the compiler generating code
> >> > that breaks a 'user' implementation of setjmp().
> >> 
> >> Yeah.  I have a patch (will send in an hour or so) that enables the
> >> "returns_twice" attribute for setjmp (in <asm/setjmp.h>).  In testing
> >> (with GCC trunk) it showed no difference in code generation, but
> >> better save than sorry.
> >> 
> >> It also sets "noreturn" on longjmp, and that *does* help, it saves a
> >> hundred insns or so (all in xmon, no surprise there).
> >> 
> >> I don't think this will make LLVM shut up about this though.  And
> >> technically it is right: the C standard does say that in hosted mode
> >> setjmp is a reserved name and you need to include <setjmp.h> to access
> >> it (not <asm/setjmp.h>).
> >
> > It does not fix the warning, I tested your patch.
> >
> >> So why is the kernel compiled as hosted?  Does adding -ffreestanding
> >> hurt anything?  Is that actually supported on LLVM, on all relevant
> >> versions of it?  Does it shut up the warning there (if not, that would
> >> be an LLVM bug)?
> >
> > It does fix this warning because -ffreestanding implies -fno-builtin,
> > which also solves the warning. LLVM has supported -ffreestanding since
> > at least 3.0.0. There are some parts of the kernel that are compiled
> > with this and it probably should be used in more places but it sounds
> > like there might be some good codegen improvements that are disabled
> > with it:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wi-epJZfBHDbKKDZ64us7WkF=LpUfhvYBmZSteO8Q0RAg@mail.gmail.com/
> 
> For xmon.c and crash.c I think using -ffreestanding would be fine.
> They're both crash/debug code, so we don't care about minor optimisation
> differences. If anything we don't want the compiler being too clever
> when generating that code.
> 
> cheers

I will send a v2 later today along with another patch to fix this
warning and another build error.

Cheers,
Nathan