On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 11:36:00AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:

quoted

quoted

As far as I understood that's mandatory on recent gcc to get the 
pre-update form of the instruction. With older versions "m" was doing 
the same, but not anymore.

Yes.  How much that matters depends on the asm.  On older CPUs (6xx/7xx,
say) the update form was just as fast as the non-update form.  On newer
or bigger CPUs it is usually executed just the same as an add followed
by the memory access, so it just saves a bit of code size.

The update-forms are stdux, sthux etc. right?

And stdu, sthu, etc.  "x" is "indexed form" (reg+reg addressing).

I don't see any change in the number of those with or without the
constraint. That's using GCC 9.3.0.

It's most useful in loops (and happens more often there).  You probably
do not have many loops that allow update form insns.

quoted

quoted

Should we ifdef the "m<>" or "m" based on GCC 
version ?

That will be a lot of churn.  Just make 4.8 minimum?

As I said in my other mail that's not really up to us. We could mandate
a higher minimum for powerpc, but I'd rather not.

Yeah, I quite understand that.

I think for now I'm inclined to just drop the "<>", and we can revisit
in a release or two when hopefully GCC 4.8 has become the minimum.

An unhappy resolution, but it leaves a light on the horizon :-)

In that case, leave the "%Un", if you will but the "<>" back soonish?
Not much point removing it and putting it back later (it is harmless,
there are more instances of it in the kernel as well, since many years).

Thanks!


Segher