[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a2mT7S4VkxqhzsH_3A8HWs6PHQFO8AinLEaHmvAmT8Kug@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 20:24:58 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: workaround clang codegen bug in dcbz
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 7:07 PM Segher Boessenkool
<segher@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:16:37AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > in_le32 and friends? Yeah, huh. If LLVM copies that to the stack as
> > well, its (not byte reversing) read will be atomic just fine, so things
> > will still work correctly.
> >
> > The things defined with DEF_MMIO_IN_D (instead of DEF_MMIO_IN_X) do not
> > look like they will work correctly if an update form address is chosen,
> > but that won't happen because the constraint is "m" instead of "m<>",
> > making the %Un pretty useless (it will always be the empty string).
>
> Btw, this is true since GCC 4.8; before 4.8, plain "m" *could* have an
> automodify (autoinc, autodec, etc.) side effect. What is the minimum
> GCC version required, these days?
gcc-4.6, but an architecture can require a higher version.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists