From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> Date: 2021-09-10 23:41:20
Now that GCC 5.1 is the minimum supported version, we can drop this
workaround for older versions of GCC. This adversely affected clang,
too.
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <redacted>
Cc: Segher Boessenkool <redacted>
Cc: Christophe Leroy <redacted>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Signed-off-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/asm-const.h | 10 ----------
1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)
Now that GCC 5.1 is the minimum supported version, we can drop this
workaround for older versions of GCC. This adversely affected clang,
too.
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <redacted>
Cc: Segher Boessenkool <redacted>
Cc: Christophe Leroy <redacted>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Signed-off-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/asm-const.h | 10 ----------
1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)
The only reason this exists is because of commit 592bbe9c505d
("powerpc/uaccess: Don't use "m<>" constraint with GCC 4.9"). It is
probably just worth sinking "<>" into all of the callsites and removing
UPD_CONSTR.
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Date: 2021-09-11 10:44:04
Nathan Chancellor [off-list ref] writes:
On 9/10/2021 4:40 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
quoted
Now that GCC 5.1 is the minimum supported version, we can drop this
workaround for older versions of GCC. This adversely affected clang,
too.
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <redacted>
Cc: Segher Boessenkool <redacted>
Cc: Christophe Leroy <redacted>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Signed-off-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/asm-const.h | 10 ----------
1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)
The only reason this exists is because of commit 592bbe9c505d
("powerpc/uaccess: Don't use "m<>" constraint with GCC 4.9"). It is
probably just worth sinking "<>" into all of the callsites and removing
UPD_CONSTR.
Yeah that would be great if you're doing a v2. Or we can do it as a
follow-up.
cheers
There is no point in keeping UPD_CONSTR if it becomes invariant. You
should just replace all instances of UPD_CONSTR with <> and drop
UPD_CONSTR completely.
Christophe