> From: "Theo de Raadt" <dera...@openbsd.org>
> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:13:13 -0600
>
> ok deraadt
>
> Next up, to figure out the right plan for ofw.
>
> Thank you so much for figuring out these two details.
>
> How are the bootblocks faring?
I believe somebody already tested the bootloader. Doesn't hurt to try
again though.
> And userland?
base was in pretty good shape already and I'm rebuilding now that the
ABI fix is in. Haven't tried xenocara yet.
> George Koehler <kern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 12:54:52 +0100 (CET)
> > Mark Kettenis <mark.kette...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > I had a look at what NetBSD does, and they use '%L0' instead of
> > > '%0+1'. As far as I can tell this works on both gcc and clang. The
> > > diff below produces a working kernel when building with gcc. Not yet
> > > in a position to test a clang-built kernel myself yet. But if this
> > > produces a working kernel with clang as well, I'd prefer this diff
> > > instead of yours.
> >
> > Yes, the clang kernel is working with your %L0 diff and the noinline
> > stuff. I now prefer your %L0 diff, ok gkoehler@
> >
> > "mftb %L0" becomes "mftb ${0:L}" in LLVM IR (clang -S -emit-llvm),
> > then LLVM handles the 'L' in PPCAsmPrinter::PrintAsmOperand in
> > /usr/src/gnu/llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCAsmPrinter.cpp
> >
> > > Index: arch/powerpc/include/cpu.h
> > > ===================================================================
> > > RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/arch/powerpc/include/cpu.h,v
> > > retrieving revision 1.65
> > > diff -u -p -r1.65 cpu.h
> > > --- arch/powerpc/include/cpu.h 23 Mar 2019 05:27:53 -0000 1.65
> > > +++ arch/powerpc/include/cpu.h 16 Mar 2020 11:30:42 -0000
> > > @@ -336,7 +336,7 @@ ppc_mftb(void)
> > > u_long scratch;
> > > u_int64_t tb;
> > >
> > > - __asm volatile ("1: mftbu %0; mftb %0+1; mftbu %1;"
> > > + __asm volatile ("1: mftbu %0; mftb %L0; mftbu %1;"
> > > " cmpw 0,%0,%1; bne 1b" : "=r"(tb), "=r"(scratch));
> > > return tb;
> > > }
> >
> >
> > --
> > George Koehler <kern...@gmail.com>
> >
>
