From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dirk.behme@de.bosch.com (Dirk Behme)
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 08:05:49 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] [RFC] arm: fix memset-related crashes caused by recent
 GCC (4.7.2) optimizations
In-Reply-To: <20130306014255.GA20971@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <1359793988-6881-1-git-send-email-ivan.djelic@parrot.com>
 <20130211184114.GP9801@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20130211194225.GK29329@parrot.com>
 <20130212140008.GB4123@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20130212155801.GQ17833@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <20130212163645.GI4123@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
 <5135F80E.3070307@gmail.com>
 <20130306014255.GA20971@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
Message-ID: <5136EACD.4090706@de.bosch.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 06.03.2013 02:42, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Dirk,
> 
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 01:50:06PM +0000, Dirk Behme wrote:
>> On 12.02.2013 17:36, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 03:58:01PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 02:00:08PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>>> Interesting... the GCC documentation also states that ffreestanding implies
>>>>> fno-builtin, so memset and co shouldn't be targetted for this sort of
>>>>> optimisation by GCC. Have you observed this problem even when passing this
>>>>> option?
>>>> Rather than wondering whether we should be using -ffreestanding or not
>>>> (which, x86 people have strongly resisted) I suggest that we just fix
>>>> our memset() implementation to be compliant.
>>>>
>>>> The reason it's not compliant is that I saw no reason for it to be
>>>> compliant back in the gcc 2.7.x days, and it's persisted like that for
>>>> the last 19-ish years.  If GCC is now making use of the return value,
>>>> then we need to fix that and undo the "optimization" in our string.h.
>>>>
>>>> So let's just bite the bullet, make the asm memset() compliant, and
>>>> clean up string.h.
>>> That would be the ideal thing to do, because it allows the compiler to
>>> optimise around these functions, however it does mean we need to check/fix
>>> *all* of the string functions at least (if we don't pass -fno-builtin then
>>> any builtin function is up for optimisation, including strcpy etc).
>> Do we already have an agreed solution for this issue anywhere, now?
> 
> I thought that the conclusion was to go with Ivan's suggestion since memset
> is the only function which doesn't follow what the compiler expects.

Ok, thanks! :)

Could we get Ivan's v2 patch integrated or at least sent to the patch 
system, then, please?

Many thanks,

Dirk