[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20260204131400.GI2995752@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2026 14:14:00 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] arm64, compiler-context-analysis: Permit alias
analysis through __READ_ONCE() with CONFIG_LTO=y
On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 11:46:02AM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 at 12:47, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
> [...]
> > > > What does GCC do with this? :/
> > >
> > > GCC currently doesn't see it, LTO is clang only.
> >
> > LTO is just one way that a compiler could end up breaking dependency
> > chains, so I really want to maintain the option to enable this path for
> > GCC in case we run into problems caused by other optimisations in future.
>
> It will work for GCC, but only from GCC 11. Before that __auto_type
> does not drop qualifiers:
> https://godbolt.org/z/sc5bcnzKd (switch to GCC 11 to see it compile)
>
> So to summarize, all supported Clang versions deal with __auto_type
> correctly for the fallback; GCC from version 11 does (kernel currently
> supports GCC 8 and above). From GCC 14 and Clang 19 we have
> __typeof_unqual__.
>
> I really don't see another way forward; there's no other good way to
> solve this issue. I would advise against pessimizing new compilers and
> features because maybe one day we might still want to enable this
> version of READ_ONCE() for GCC 8-10.
>
> Should we one day choose to enable this READ_ONCE() version for GCC,
> we will (a) either have bumped the minimum GCC version to 11+, or (b)
> we can only do so from GCC 11. At this point GCC 11 was released 5
> years ago!
There is, from this thread:
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20260111182010.GH3634291@ZenIV
another trick to strip qualifiers:
#define unqual_non_array(T) __typeof__(((T(*)(void))0)())
which will work from GCC-8.4 onwards. Arguably, it should be possible to
raise the minimum from 8 to 8.4 (IMO).
But yes; in general I think it is fine to have 'old' compilers generate
suboptimal code.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists