Hi,
On 4/11/22 05:31, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 01:51:30PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
Hi all,
[adding kernel folk who work on asm stuff]
As a heads-up, GCC 12 (not yet released) appears to erroneously optimize away
calls to functions with volatile asm. Szabolcs has raised a
On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 01:51:30PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> [adding kernel folk who work on asm stuff]
>
> As a heads-up, GCC 12 (not yet released) appears to erroneously optimize away
> calls to functions with volatile asm. Szabolcs has raised an issue on the GCC
> bugzilla:
>
On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 04:05:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 01:51:30PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > [adding kernel folk who work on asm stuff]
> >
> > As a heads-up, GCC 12 (not yet released) appears to erroneously optimize
> > away
> > calls to fu
On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 01:51:30PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> [adding kernel folk who work on asm stuff]
>
> As a heads-up, GCC 12 (not yet released) appears to erroneously optimize away
> calls to functions with volatile asm. Szabolcs has raised an issue on the GCC
> bugzilla:
>
On 05/04/2022 14:04, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 01:51:30PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> My x86_64 test case is:
>
> Per compiler explorer (https://godbolt.org/z/cveff9hq5) GCC trunk currently
> compiles this as:
>
> | msr_rmw_set_bits:
> | mov rcx, rdi
> | rdm
Sorry, I copied the wrong version of the x86_64 assembly as generated by GCC
11.2.0). Updated below.
On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 01:51:30PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> My x86_64 test case is:
>
> | unsigned long rdmsr(unsigned long reg)
> | {
> | unsigned int lo, hi;
> |
> | asm volatile(
>
Hi all,
[adding kernel folk who work on asm stuff]
As a heads-up, GCC 12 (not yet released) appears to erroneously optimize away
calls to functions with volatile asm. Szabolcs has raised an issue on the GCC
bugzilla:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105160
... which is a P1 rele
On Sun, Apr 03, 2022 at 09:47:47AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 at 09:47, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 at 09:38, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > > It might not be the most restricted fix but it is a fix.
> > > The best fix is to tell that you are writing to that loca
On 4/3/2022 12:36 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 10:24 AM Mark Rutland via Gcc wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
Thanks for raising this.
On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 11:44:06AM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
The relaxed variants of read/write macros are only declared
as `asm volatile()` which for
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 at 09:47, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 at 09:38, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 10:24 AM Mark Rutland via Gcc
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Jeremy,
> > >
> > > Thanks for raising this.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 11:44:06AM -0500, Jere
On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 at 09:38, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 10:24 AM Mark Rutland via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jeremy,
> >
> > Thanks for raising this.
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 11:44:06AM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> > > The relaxed variants of read/write macros are only dec
On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 10:24 AM Mark Rutland via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> Thanks for raising this.
>
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 11:44:06AM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> > The relaxed variants of read/write macros are only declared
> > as `asm volatile()` which forces the compiler to generate t
Hi Jeremy,
Thanks for raising this.
On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 11:44:06AM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> The relaxed variants of read/write macros are only declared
> as `asm volatile()` which forces the compiler to generate the
> instruction in the code path as intended. The only problem
> is that i
13 matches
Mail list logo
