linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] powerpc: e500: Fix compilation with gcc e500 compiler

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 10 Jul 2022 17:38:33 +0000
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To:     Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>
CC:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: e500: Fix compilation with gcc e500 compiler



Le 09/07/2022 à 12:23, Pali Rohár a écrit :
>>>    
>>> -ifdef CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64
>>>    ifdef CONFIG_CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN
>>> -CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_CPU) += -mcpu=power8
>>> -CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_CPU) += $(call cc-option,-mtune=power9,-mtune=power8)
>>> +CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64) += -mcpu=power8
>>> +CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64) += $(call cc-option,-mtune=power9,-mtune=power8)
>>>    else
>>> -CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_CPU) += $(call cc-option,-mtune=power7,$(call cc-option,-mtune=power5))
>>> -CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_CPU) += $(call cc-option,-mcpu=power5,-mcpu=power4)
>>> -endif
>>> -else ifdef CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3E_64
>>> -CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_CPU) += -mcpu=powerpc64
>>> +CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64) += $(call cc-option,-mtune=power7,$(call cc-option,-mtune=power5))
>>> +CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64) += $(call cc-option,-mcpu=power5,-mcpu=power4)
>>
>> So before that change I got -mcpu=power9
>>
>> Now I get -mtune=power7 -mcpu=power5 -mcpu=power9
> 
> I did it like Arnd wrote.
> 
> And seems that it does not work and now is fully out of the scope of the
> original issue. Now I'm really lost here.
> 
> So I nobody comes with better solution, I would prefer to stick with my
> original version which targets _only_ e500 cores.
> 
> Any other suggestion?

I sent a patch based on the TARGET_CPU logic, does it work for you ?

Christophe