arm64: Question about warnings due to unspecified ASM operand width

[mka@chromium.org (Matthias Kaehlcke)]

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