[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151221125130.GO23092@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 12:51:30 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc: Andrew Pinski <apinski@...ium.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM64: Fix compiling with GCC 6 and Atomics enabled
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 01:46:22PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 21 December 2015 at 13:38, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 08:17:35PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >> The problem here is that GCC 6 and above emits .arch now
> >> for each function so now the global .arch_extension has
> >> no effect. This fixes the problem by putting
> >> .arch_extension inside ARM64_LSE_ATOMIC_INSN so
> >> it is enabled for each place where LSE is used.
> >
> > Hmm, this is going to affect arch/arm/ much more heavily than arch/arm64.
> > .arch_extension is used for virt, mp and sec over there, and it may be
> > tricky to isolate the actual instruction usage (at least, virt looks
> > lost in kvm/arm.c).
> >
> > Why can't gas have an option to accept all instruction encodings that it
> > knows about, inspite of any .arch directives?
> >
>
> Modern GAS supports things like -march=armv7-a+mp+sec+virt, so it
> probably makes sense to pass that on the command line when building
> for v7 (or +sec only for v6) if the assembler is found to support it
> at build time.
Does that override a more restrictive .arch directive emitted by the
compiler?
Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists