[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a0x2KJuCjupKuj6XAYUAeF47ZV4bWuEGUQFOcOK_Do2jA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2022 21:13:08 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Tao Zhang <quic_taozha@...cinc.com>,
Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>,
Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, coresight@...ts.linaro.org,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <llvm@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] coresight: etm4x: avoid build failure with unrolled loops
On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 1:15 AM Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
> ({ \
> u64 __val; \
> \
> - if (__builtin_constant_p((offset))) \
> + if (__is_constexpr((offset))) \
> __val = read_etm4x_sysreg_const_offset((offset)); \
> else \
> __val = etm4x_sysreg_read((offset), true, (_64bit)); \
>
This is clearly better than the current version using
__builtin_constant_p(), but
I don't think it's safe in all cases, since there are expressions that
are constant
expressions to the compiler but are not valid input to the assembler.
I would prefer to see this fixed differently, but doing this one first is also
fine with me:
Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists