Thread (103 messages) 103 messages, 16 authors, 2017-12-04

[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.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help