[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191114165544.GB5158@willie-the-truck>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 16:55:44 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] arm64: fix alternatives with LLVM's integrated
assembler
Hi Sami,
Sorry -- I thought I'd already replied to this, but it had actually
slipped through the cracks.
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 12:46:52PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> LLVM's integrated assembler fails with the following error when
> building KVM:
>
> <inline asm>:12:6: error: expected absolute expression
> .if kvm_update_va_mask == 0
> ^
> <inline asm>:21:6: error: expected absolute expression
> .if kvm_update_va_mask == 0
> ^
> <inline asm>:24:2: error: unrecognized instruction mnemonic
> NOT_AN_INSTRUCTION
> ^
> LLVM ERROR: Error parsing inline asm
>
> These errors come from ALTERNATIVE_CB and __ALTERNATIVE_CFG,
> which test for the existence of the callback parameter in inline
> assembly using the following expression:
>
> " .if " __stringify(cb) " == 0\n"
>
> This works with GNU as, but isn't supported by LLVM. This change
> splits __ALTERNATIVE_CFG and ALTINSTR_ENTRY into separate macros
> to fix the LLVM build.
Please could you explain a bit more about the failure and why LLVM's
integrated assembler rejects this? Could we use something like .ifb or
.ifeqs instead?
Thanks,
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists