Linux-ARM-Kernel Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: arm64: Question about warnings due to unspecified ASM operand width
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 12:38:49 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170418113849.GC27592@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170418013156.GB105296@google.com>

On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 06:31:56PM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> 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 think the first step would be to test it against a newer kernel. The
above code disappeared in 4.9 in favour of dedicated read_sysreg()
macros which shouldn't give this warning (u64 __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.

I don't think arm64 would benefit from such ambiguity, so we should
rather fix them. In practice there is no issue since the compiler cannot
allocate two 32-bit variables in a 64-bit register.

> 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.

I'm not aware of a desirable ambiguity here.

Thanks.

-- 
Catalin

  reply	other threads:[~2017-04-18 11:38 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 [this message]
2017-04-18 18:12   ` Matthias Kaehlcke
2017-04-18 14:29 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-04-18 19:23   ` Matthias Kaehlcke
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=20170418113849.GC27592@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com \
    --to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /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