From: mka@chromium•org (Matthias Kaehlcke)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: arm64: Question about warnings due to unspecified ASM operand width
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 12:23:17 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170418192317.GC128305@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu-ThWK_OCO6A9+6wi3b52_UT5_Da3juO3N2f1PqrHDjFw@mail.gmail.com>
Hoi Ard,
Thanks for your reply!
El Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 03:29:39PM +0100 Ard Biesheuvel ha dit:
> On 18 April 2017 at 02:31, Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium•org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > During my work on improving support for kernel builds with clang I
> > came across a bunch of warnings on arm64 builds about the width of
> > operands in assembly not being specified:
> >
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/arch_timer.h:92:46: error: value size does
> > not match register size specified by the constraint and modifier [-Werror,-Wasm-operand-widths]
> > asm volatile("mrs %0, cntfrq_el0" : "=r" (val));
> >
> > I understand that this is usually not a problem and might even be
> > desired to give the compiler more flexiblity in the use of the
> > available registers.
> >
> > My goal is to eventually build the kernel without warnings, not
> > necessarily fixing all of them, warnings can also be disabled, e.g.
> > in case of spurious warnings or a high number of occurrences that is
> > too expensive to fix.
> >
> > Before delving into 'fixing' these 'asm-operand-widths' warnings I'd
> > be interested to know if this is actually desirable or if it is
> > preferred to keep the operand width unspecified in certain cases.
> >
>
>
> The root cause is that Clang infers the size of the register from the
> size of the operand, while GCC always uses an xN register for a %
> placeholder.
>
> With msr/mrs instructions, we can only use xN registers
Good to know, thanks!
> and so the only way to fix this is to ensure that we always use
> 64-bit operands even for 32-bit system registers. This may be
> possible in most cases, but assigning 32-bit struct fields becomes a
> bit painful this way, and 'fixing' what is arguably not broken to
> begin with may not be something Catalin is eager to accept.
I'm not sure this would be an issue. Clang does not warn about 32-bit
operands used with 64-bit registers, but about the register type not
being specified at all. I think we should be fine with specifying xN
registers for msr/mrs instructions.
> Do you know if there is a rationale behind this disparity?
No, I don't know the rationale behind the register allocation for %
placeholders. I tend to see it as an 'implementation' detail as long
as it doesn't cause trouble.
Cheers
Matthias
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-18 19:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-18 1:31 arm64: Question about warnings due to unspecified ASM operand width Matthias Kaehlcke
2017-04-18 11:38 ` Catalin Marinas
2017-04-18 18:12 ` Matthias Kaehlcke
2017-04-18 14:29 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-04-18 19:23 ` Matthias Kaehlcke [this message]
2017-04-18 19:54 ` Ard Biesheuvel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170418192317.GC128305@google.com \
--to=mka@chromium$(echo .)org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox