[PATCH v2 11/18] arm64: make mrs_s and msr_s macros work with LTO
From: robin.murphy@arm.com (Robin Murphy)
Date: 2017-11-16 13:55:50
Also in:
linux-kbuild, lkml
On 16/11/17 13:07, Yury Norov wrote:
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:54:33AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:quoted
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 01:34:21PM -0800, Sami Tolvanen wrote:quoted
From: Alex Matveev <redacted> Use UNDEFINE_MRS_S and UNDEFINE_MSR_S to define corresponding macros in-place and workaround gcc and clang limitations on redefining macros across different assembler blocks.What limitations? Can you elaborate please? Is this a fix?Hi Will, Regarding GCC. When it joins preprocessed source files into single asm file, mrs_s/msr_s becomes either not declared or declared multiple times. ./ccuFb68h.s:33120: Error: Macro `mrs_s' was already defined ./ccuFb68h.s:33124: Error: Macro `msr_s' was already defined I'm not sure that GCC works correctly in this case, and I sent the email to Linaro toolchain group to clarify it. See below. Yury [...] Links: My unfinished branch: https://github.com/norov/linux/tree/lto Andi Kleen tree: https://github.com/andikleen/linux-misc/tree/lto-411-1 Sami Tolvanen's recent work for clang: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/3/606 Question we have for now: There's mrs_s/msr_s macro that doesn't work with LTO - linker complains very loudly that macro is either not declared, or declared multiple times. (To reproduce - try to build my kernel branch w/o last patch). The same (?) problem is observed with clang, and people there considered it as feature, not a bug. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19749 We have the fix for both clang and gcc, but it looks hacky. Maybe it worth to fix mrs/msr issue on toolchain side?
Given that this whole mrs_s infrastructure is a workaround for older assemblers which don't support the "S<op0>_<op1>_<Cn>_<Cm>_<op2>" syntax for arbitrary unnamed system registers (which IIRC was a fairly late addition to the architecture), the only way it could be "fixed" on the toolchain side is by removing all those older toolchains from existence. Good luck with that ;) In *theory*, it might be possible to do something similar to what we do with CONFIG_BROKEN_GAS_INST to detect offending assemblers and only define and use these macros when necessary (hopefully Clang and other LTO-capable toolchains do accept the proper syntax), but I've no idea how invasive or difficult that might turn out to be. Robin.