From: Ammar Faizi <[email protected]>
To: Alviro Iskandar Setiawan <[email protected]>,
Willy Tarreau <[email protected]>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>,
Nugraha <[email protected]>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <[email protected]>,
GNU/Weeb Mailing List <[email protected]>,
David Laight <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 04/11] tools/nolibc: x86-64: Use appropriate register constraints if exist
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:00:13 +0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOG64qMwKYHLrUVro1gFhYqHvm8wq5DUdO7QfK5gG2TKhfnNhA@mail.gmail.com>
On 3/24/22 3:33 PM, Alviro Iskandar Setiawan wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 2:57 PM Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 02:30:32PM +0700, Ammar Faizi wrote:
>>> Use appropriate register constraints if exist. Don't use register
>>> variables for all inputs.
>>>
>>> Register variables with "r" constraint should be used when we need to
>>> pass data through a specific register to extended inline assembly that
>>> doesn't have a specific register constraint associated with it (anything
>>> outside %rax, %rbx, %rcx, %rdx, %rsi, %rdi).
>>>
>>> It also simplifies the macro definition.
>>
>> I'm a bit bothered by this one because I went the exact opposite route
>> in the early design precisely because I found that the current one was
>> simpler. [...]
> [...]
>> I'd say that if there is any technical benefit in doing this (occasional
>> code improvement or better support for older or exotic compilers), I'd say
>> "ok go for it", but if it's only a matter of taste, I'm not convinced at
>> all and am rather seeing this as a regression. Now if there's rough
>> consensus around this approach I'll abide, but then I'd request that other
>> archs are adapted as well so that we don't keep a different approach only
>> for these two ones.
>
> I don't see any technical benefit for x86-64, so I don't think there
> is a need in doing this. Though I personally prefer to use register
> constraints if they exist instead of register variables for everything
> (oh yeah, matter of taste since I don't have any technical argument to
> say it's better respecting the resulting codegen). The only real issue
> is for the syscall6() implementation on i386 as we've been bitten by a
> real compiler issue. In short, I am neutral on this change.
OK then, I will drop this patch in the next version. I agree that it
doesn't really show any technical benefit and there is no danger in
doing the current implementation.
And yes, the syscall6() for i386 is somewhat problematic and we've a
confirmed bug that lives in many versions of GCC and it's not even fixed
in the current trunk. It's proven that using register constraints can
be a valid workaround to deal with this bug.
2022-03-23 13:50:18 UTC, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Anyway, with the "b" etc. constraints (which is a good idea to use on
> x86 when it has single register constraints for those but can't be used
> on other arches which do not have such constraints) you just trigger
> slightly different path in the RA, [...]
See the discussion here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105032#c7
^^^ That is only for syscall6() on i386.
As such, I will drop this patch and another one that does this on i386.
Thanks!
--
Ammar Faizi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-24 9:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-24 7:30 [PATCH v1 00/11] Add dynamic memory allocator support for nolibc Ammar Faizi
2022-03-24 7:30 ` [PATCH v1 01/11] tools/nolibc: x86-64: Update System V ABI document link Ammar Faizi
2022-03-24 7:30 ` [PATCH v1 02/11] tools/nolibc: Remove .global _start from the entry point code Ammar Faizi
2022-03-24 7:30 ` [PATCH v1 03/11] tools/nolibc: Replace `asm` with `__asm__` Ammar Faizi
2022-03-24 7:41 ` Willy Tarreau
2022-03-24 9:03 ` Ammar Faizi
2022-03-24 7:30 ` [PATCH v1 04/11] tools/nolibc: x86-64: Use appropriate register constraints if exist Ammar Faizi
2022-03-24 7:57 ` Willy Tarreau
2022-03-24 8:33 ` Alviro Iskandar Setiawan
2022-03-24 9:00 ` Ammar Faizi [this message]
2022-03-24 15:42 ` Willy Tarreau
2022-03-24 7:30 ` [PATCH v1 05/11] tools/nolibc: i386: " Ammar Faizi
2022-03-24 7:30 ` [PATCH v1 06/11] tools/nolibc: i386: Implement syscall with 6 arguments Ammar Faizi
2022-03-24 7:30 ` [PATCH v1 07/11] tools/nolibc/sys: Implement `mmap()` and `munmap()` Ammar Faizi
2022-03-24 7:30 ` [PATCH v1 08/11] tools/nolibc/types: Implement `offsetof()` and `container_of()` macro Ammar Faizi
2022-03-24 7:30 ` [PATCH v1 09/11] tools/nolibc/stdlib: Implement `malloc()`, `calloc()`, `realloc()` and `free()` Ammar Faizi
2022-03-24 7:30 ` [PATCH v1 10/11] tools/nolibc/string: Implement `strnlen()` Ammar Faizi
2022-03-24 7:30 ` [PATCH v1 11/11] tools/include/string: Implement `strdup()` and `strndup()` Ammar Faizi
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 \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
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