[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdkcpxcP5Eb5f1-bJgU0gi4zkbof5WJWz2QbVCNsGBUO3w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 18:43:05 +0000
From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
Cc: Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>, marc.zyngier@....com,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
Dave.Martin@....com, Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Manoj Gupta <manojgupta@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm/arm64: smccc: Use xN for arm64 register constraints
with clang
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:58 PM Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org> wrote:
> El Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 04:19:42PM -0700 Greg Hackmann ha dit:
> > NAK. There's a reason I didn't send my change upstream.
> >
> > As Marc pointed out (https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/16/987), the "r"
> > prefix tells gcc to pick the appropriate register width. "x" makes it
> > unconditionally use the entire 64-bit register width. Just swapping out
> > one for the other changes the macro's semantics.
> >
> > Unfortunately since this was breaking builds in android-4.14 and we
> > didn't have an immediate-term fix, I bit the bullet and added the above
> > commit -- but *only* as a short-term workaround. For the one caller we
> > currently have in 4.14.y, gcc was using the entire 64-bit width for all
> > its inputs anyway, so "r" vs. "x" didn't make a difference. But that
> > might not be true if/when someone introduces other SMCCC 1.1 callers.
> >
> > Unfortunately I don't see a better way to deal with this than waiting
> > for clang to support "r"-style constraints on ARM64.
> Thanks for the clarification! From the other thread
> (https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/1/268) I had the impression that ARM
> folks saw the option of a mergeable fix.
> Given the fact that clang support for kernel builds is still
> recent/WIP I guess it's not the end of the world if we have to raise
> the minimum clang version to 7.x for newer kernels.
Manoj fixed this in:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL328829
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36862
Looks set to ride the Clang 6.0 train. mka@ if you're planning another
state of the union email, it would be good to note the clang 6.0
requirement for arm64.
Is there anything left to do here?
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists