From: Bill Wendling <morbo@google.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] powerpc/64s: feature: Work around inline asm issues
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 17:59:38 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGG=3QXzFvRACUpW5DXEhXU-GOdGux45zT-0QACe2zf=kZVCig@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87ft4vy5jp.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 5:03 PM Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
>
> Bill Wendling <morbo@google.com> writes:
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 7:44 PM Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> >> Bill Wendling <morbo@google.com> writes:
> >> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 12:10 PM Segher Boessenkool
> >> > <segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 12:01:01PM -0800, Bill Wendling wrote:
> >> >> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:58 AM Segher Boessenkool
> >> >> > <segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> >> >> > > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 10:36 PM Segher Boessenkool
> >> >> > > > <segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> >> >> > > > > "true" (as a result of a comparison) in as is -1, not 1.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:43:11AM -0800, Bill Wendling wrote:
> >> >> > > > What Segher said. :-) Also, if you reverse the comparison, you'll get
> >> >> > > > a build error.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > But that means your patch is the wrong way around?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > - .ifgt (label##4b- label##3b)-(label##2b- label##1b); \
> >> >> > > - .error "Feature section else case larger than body"; \
> >> >> > > - .endif; \
> >> >> > > + .org . - ((label##4b-label##3b) > (label##2b-label##1b)); \
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > It should be a + in that last line, not a -.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I said so in a follow up email.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yeah, and that arrived a second after I pressed "send" :-)
> >> >>
> >> > Michael, I apologize for the churn with these patches. I believe the
> >> > policy is to resend the match as "v4", correct?
> >> >
> >> > I ran tests with the change above. It compiled with no error. If I
> >> > switch the labels around to ".org . + ((label##2b-label##1b) >
> >> > (label##4b-label##3b))", then it fails as expected.
> >>
> >> I wanted to retain the nicer error reporting for gcc builds, so I did it
> >> like this:
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/feature-fixups.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/feature-fixups.h
> >> index b0af97add751..c4ad33074df5 100644
> >> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/feature-fixups.h
> >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/feature-fixups.h
> >> @@ -36,6 +36,24 @@ label##2: \
> >> .align 2; \
> >> label##3:
> >>
> >> +
> >> +#ifndef CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG
> >> +#define CHECK_ALT_SIZE(else_size, body_size) \
> >> + .ifgt (else_size) - (body_size); \
> >> + .error "Feature section else case larger than body"; \
> >> + .endif;
> >> +#else
> >> +/*
> >> + * If we use the ifgt syntax above, clang's assembler complains about the
> >> + * expression being non-absolute when the code appears in an inline assembly
> >> + * statement.
> >> + * As a workaround use an .org directive that has no effect if the else case
> >> + * instructions are smaller than the body, but fails otherwise.
> >> + */
> >> +#define CHECK_ALT_SIZE(else_size, body_size) \
> >> + .org . + ((else_size) > (body_size));
> >> +#endif
> >> +
> >> #define MAKE_FTR_SECTION_ENTRY(msk, val, label, sect) \
> >> label##4: \
> >> .popsection; \
> >> @@ -48,9 +66,7 @@ label##5: \
> >> FTR_ENTRY_OFFSET label##2b-label##5b; \
> >> FTR_ENTRY_OFFSET label##3b-label##5b; \
> >> FTR_ENTRY_OFFSET label##4b-label##5b; \
> >> - .ifgt (label##4b- label##3b)-(label##2b- label##1b); \
> >> - .error "Feature section else case larger than body"; \
> >> - .endif; \
> >> + CHECK_ALT_SIZE((label##4b-label##3b), (label##2b-label##1b)); \
> >> .popsection;
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I've pushed a branch with all your patches applied to:
> >>
> >> https://github.com/linuxppc/linux/commits/next-test
> >>
> > This works for me. Thanks!
>
> Great.
>
> >> Are you able to give that a quick test? It builds clean with clang for
> >> me, but we must be using different versions of clang because my branch
> >> already builds clean for me even without your patches.
> >>
> > You may need to set LLVM_IAS=1 to get the behavior I'm seeing. That
> > turns on clang's integrated assembler, which I think is disabled by
> > default.
>
> Yep that does it.
>
> But then I get:
> clang: error: unsupported argument '-mpower4' to option 'Wa,'
> clang: error: unsupported argument '-many' to option 'Wa,'
>
> So I guess I'm still missing something?
>
[Resent, because my previous email went out as non-plain text.]
I've seen that too. I'm not entirely sure what's causing it, but I'll
look into it. I've got a backlog of things to work on still. :-) It's
probably a clang issue. There's another one that came up having to do
with the format of some PPC instructions. I have a clang fix on review
for those.
> > Note that with clang's integrated assembler, arch/powerpc/boot/util.S
> > fails to compile. Alan Modra mentioned that he sent you a patch to
> > "modernize" the file so that clang can compile it.
>
> Ah you're right he did, it didn't go to patchwork so I missed it. Have
> grabbed it now.
>
Thanks!
-bw
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-27 2:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-17 0:47 [PATCH 0/2] Fixes for clang/lld Bill Wendling
2020-10-17 0:47 ` [PATCH 1/2] powerpc/wrapper: Add "-z notext" flag to disable diagnostic Bill Wendling
2020-10-17 0:47 ` [PATCH 2/2] powerpc/boot: Use clang when CC is clang Bill Wendling
2020-11-18 22:35 ` [PATCH 0/3] PPC: fixes for clang support Bill Wendling
2020-11-20 22:40 ` [PATCH v3 " Bill Wendling
2020-11-20 22:40 ` [PATCH 1/3] powerpc/wrapper: add "-z notext" flag to disable diagnostic Bill Wendling
2020-11-20 22:40 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] powerpc/boot: Use clang when CC is clang Bill Wendling
2020-11-20 22:40 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] powerpc/64s: feature: Work around inline asm issues Bill Wendling
2020-11-23 5:44 ` Michael Ellerman
2020-11-23 6:34 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-11-23 19:43 ` Bill Wendling
2020-11-23 19:53 ` Bill Wendling
2020-11-23 19:56 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-11-23 20:01 ` Bill Wendling
2020-11-23 20:08 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-11-23 20:17 ` Bill Wendling
2020-11-24 3:43 ` Michael Ellerman
2020-11-25 5:13 ` Bill Wendling
2020-11-27 1:03 ` Michael Ellerman
2020-11-27 1:10 ` Bill Wendling
2020-11-27 1:59 ` Bill Wendling [this message]
2020-11-18 22:35 ` [PATCH 1/3] powerpc/wrapper: add "-z notext" flag to disable diagnostic Bill Wendling
2020-11-18 22:35 ` [PATCH 2/3] powerpc/boot: Use clang when CC is clang Bill Wendling
2020-11-18 22:35 ` [PATCH 3/3] powerpc/64s: feature: work around inline asm issues Bill Wendling
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='CAGG=3QXzFvRACUpW5DXEhXU-GOdGux45zT-0QACe2zf=kZVCig@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=morbo@google.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).