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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:12:26 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org> To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> Cc: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/5] powerpc/44x: Fix build failure with GCC 12 (unrecognized opcode: `wrteei') On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 05:05:04PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Is there any value in building for -mcpu=440 or -mcpu=464 when targeting a 476? The original 440 had a very short pipeline. Later IBM 4xx have a longer pipeline. Getting this right (with -mtune=, or just with -mcpu=) is important for performance. So, no? > Maybe add another !PPC_47x dependency for the first two. Ideally we would also > enforce that 440/464 based boards cannot be selected together with 476, though > I guess that is a separate issue. > > Is there a practical difference between 440 and 464 when building kernels? > gcc seems to treat them the same way, so maybe one option for both is enough > here. -mcpu= is used as the default for -mtune=, so that is always a consideration. PPC464 is treated the same as PPC440 in binutils as well, so I don't think there is any issue there. Segher
Powered by blists - more mailing lists