From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: fix __ucmpdi2 compile bug on 32 bit builds Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:38:50 +0100 Message-ID: <87prg26l79.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> References: <20090327134252.0f24773b@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Chris Mason , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Heiko Carstens Return-path: Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:48314 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751373AbZC1Jiz (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Mar 2009 05:38:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090327134252.0f24773b@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> (Heiko Carstens's message of "Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:42:52 +0100") Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Heiko Carstens writes: > From: Heiko Carstens > > We get this on 32 builds: > > fs/built-in.o: In function `extent_fiemap': > (.text+0x1019f2): undefined reference to `__ucmpdi2' > > Happens because of a switch statement with a 64 bit argument. > Convert this to an if statement to fix this. To be honest that sounds more like a bug in your architecture. I don't think it's the right solution to make a new rule "you shall not do 64bit switch()", because that's a reasonable thing to do and will be hard to enforce over millions of lines of random Linux code. There was a explicit decision to not support implicit 64bit divides on 32bit because they're very costly, but that doesn't really apply to 64bit switch(). At least they shouldn't be very costly in theory. It seems indeed weird to call a function to compare a 64bit value. I bet the call sequence is larger than just doing two cmps. Perhaps your gcc should be fixed? Or alternatively at least that function be added to the kernel runtime library. -Andi ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.