[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YkxMov3qpHxFa/n3@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 16:05:22 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, gcc@....gnu.org,
catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, marcan@...can.st,
maz@...nel.org, szabolcs.nagy@....com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
opendmb@...il.com, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@...il.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
Subject: Re: GCC 12 miscompilation of volatile asm (was: Re: [PATCH]
arm64/io: Remind compiler that there is a memory side effect)
On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 01:51:30PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> [adding kernel folk who work on asm stuff]
>
> As a heads-up, GCC 12 (not yet released) appears to erroneously optimize away
> calls to functions with volatile asm. Szabolcs has raised an issue on the GCC
> bugzilla:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105160
>
> ... which is a P1 release blocker, and is currently being investigated.
>
> Jemery originally reported this as an issue with {readl,writel}_relaxed(), but
> the underlying problem doesn't have anything to do with those specifically.
>
> I'm dumping a bunch of info here largely for posterity / archival, and to find
> out who (from the kernel side) is willing and able to test proposed compiler
> fixes, once those are available.
>
> I'm happy to do so for aarch64; Peter, I assume you'd be happy to look at the
> x86 side?
Sure..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists