From: Balamuruhan S <bala24@linux.ibm.com>
To: "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: christophe.leroy@c-s.fr, ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com,
jniethe5@gmail.com, paulus@samba.org, sandipan@linux.ibm.com,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 7/7] powerpc/selftest: reuse ppc-opcode macros to avoid redundancy
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 13:15:37 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <863653096d265d07ca58118294e1549753dd1ff2.camel@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1588247640.as3rhyetf4.naveen@linux.ibm.com>
On Thu, 2020-04-30 at 17:27 +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> > > Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > > Balamuruhan S <bala24@linux.ibm.com> writes:
> > > > > Avoid redefining macros to encode ppc instructions instead reuse it
> > > > > from
> > > > > ppc-opcode.h, Makefile changes are necessary to compile memcmp_64.S
> > > > > with
> > > > > __ASSEMBLY__ defined from selftests.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Balamuruhan S <bala24@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > .../selftests/powerpc/stringloops/Makefile | 34 ++++++++++++++---
> > > > > -
> > > > > .../powerpc/stringloops/asm/asm-const.h | 1 +
> > > > > .../powerpc/stringloops/asm/ppc-opcode.h | 36 +--------------
> > > > > ----
> > > > > 3 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
> > > > > create mode 120000
> > > > > tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/stringloops/asm/asm-const.h
> > > > > mode change 100644 => 120000
> > > > > tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/stringloops/asm/ppc-opcode.h
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/stringloops/Makefile
> > > > > b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/stringloops/Makefile
> > > > > index 7fc0623d85c3..efe76c5a5b94 100644
> > > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/stringloops/Makefile
> > > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/stringloops/Makefile
> > > > > @@ -1,26 +1,44 @@
> > > > > # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > > > # The loops are all 64-bit code
> > > > > -CFLAGS += -I$(CURDIR)
> > > > > +GIT_VERSION = $(shell git describe --always --long --dirty || echo
> > > > > "unknown")
> > > > > +CFLAGS += -DGIT_VERSION='"$(GIT_VERSION)"' -I$(CURDIR)
> > > > > -I$(CURDIR)/../include
> > > > >
> > > > > EXTRA_SOURCES := ../harness.c
> > > > >
> > > > > build_32bit = $(shell if ($(CC) $(CFLAGS) -m32 -o /dev/null memcmp.c
> > > > > >/dev/null 2>&1) then echo "1"; fi)
> > > > >
> > > > > +ifneq ($(build_32bit),1)
> > > > > TEST_GEN_PROGS := memcmp_64 strlen
> > > > > +TEST_GEN_FILES := memcmp.o memcmp_64.o memcmp_64
> > > > > +MEMCMP := $(OUTPUT)/memcmp.o
> > > > > +MEMCMP_64 := $(OUTPUT)/memcmp_64.o
> > > > > +HARNESS := $(OUTPUT)/../harness.o
> > > > > +CFLAGS += -m64 -maltivec
> > > > >
> > > > > -$(OUTPUT)/memcmp_64: memcmp.c
> > > > > -$(OUTPUT)/memcmp_64: CFLAGS += -m64 -maltivec
> > > > > +OVERRIDE_TARGETS := 1
> > > > > +include ../../lib.mk
> > > > >
> > > > > -ifeq ($(build_32bit),1)
> > > > > +$(OUTPUT)/memcmp_64: $(MEMCMP_64) $(MEMCMP) $(HARNESS)
> > > > > + $(CC) $(CFLAGS) memcmp.o memcmp_64.o ../harness.o -o memcmp_64
> > > > > +
> > > > > +$(MEMCMP_64): memcmp_64.S
> > > > > + $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -D__ASSEMBLY__ -o memcmp_64.o -c memcmp_64.S
> > > > > +
> > > > > +$(MEMCMP): memcmp.c
> > > > > + $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -o memcmp.o -c memcmp.c
> > > > > +
> > > > > +$(HARNESS): $(EXTRA_SOURCES)
> > > > > + $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -DGIT_VERSION='"$(GIT_VERSION)"' -o
> > > > > ../harness.o -c $(EXTRA_SOURCES)
> > > >
> > > > What are you actually trying to do here? Is it just that you need to
> > > > define __ASSEMBLY__ for memcmp_64.S?
> > >
> > > Adding __ASSEMBLY__ while building memcmp_64.S would be the goal, so as
> > > to reuse ppc-opcode.h. However, asm/ppc-opcode.h under stringloops test
> > > is tiny and doesn't seem to justify the change.
Okay, I will drop the last patch that have changes for stringloops Makefile.
make and make clean is not working from inside stringloops directory which is
fixed with this change.
> >
> > I don't see ppc-opcode.h testing __ASSEMBLY__ though, so I don't think
> > we even need to define it?
>
> Right -- it's rather 'stringify_in_c' which tests it. 'asm/ppc-opcode.h'
> under stringloops/ unconditionally defines 'stringify_in_c' this way:
> # define stringify_in_c(...) __VA_ARGS__
>
It is expecting __ASSEMBLY__ through ppc-opcode.h -> asm-const.h to raw encode
the instruction in assembly file instead to stringify it for c file. we observe
this Assembler messages without defining __ASSEMBLY__,
memcmp_64.S: Assembler messages:
memcmp_64.S:473: Error: unknown pseudo-op: `.long (0x100000c7 | (((0) & 0x1f)
<< 21) | (((0) & 0x1f) << 16) | (((1) & 0x1f) << 11) | (0x1 << 10))'
memcmp_64.S:477: Error: unknown pseudo-op: `.long (0x100000c7 | (((0) & 0x1f)
<< 21) | (((0) & 0x1f) << 16) | (((1) & 0x1f) << 11) | (0x1 << 10))'
memcmp_64.S:586: Error: unknown pseudo-op: `.long (0x10000006 | (((7) & 0x1f)
<< 21) | (((9) & 0x1f) << 16) | (((10) & 0x1f) << 11) | (0x1 << 10))'
memcmp_64.S:607: Error: unknown pseudo-op: `.long (0x10000006 | (((7) & 0x1f)
<< 21) | (((9) & 0x1f) << 16) | (((10) & 0x1f) << 11) | (0x1 << 10))'
memcmp_64.S:616: Error: unknown pseudo-op: `.long (0x10000006 | (((7) & 0x1f)
<< 21) | (((9) & 0x1f) << 16) | (((10) & 0x1f) << 11) | (0x1 << 10))'
make[1]: *** [../../lib.mk:148:
/home/bala/linux/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/stringloops/memcmp_64] Error 1
-- Bala
>
> - Naveen
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-26 7:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-24 7:08 [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] consolidate PowerPC instruction encoding macros Balamuruhan S
2020-04-24 7:08 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/7] powerpc/ppc-opcode: introduce PPC_RAW_* macros for base instruction encoding Balamuruhan S
2020-04-24 7:08 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/7] powerpc/ppc-opcode: move ppc instruction encoding from test_emulate_step Balamuruhan S
2020-04-24 7:08 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/7] powerpc/bpf_jit: reuse instruction macros from ppc-opcode.h Balamuruhan S
2020-04-24 7:08 ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/7] powerpc/ppc-opcode: consolidate powerpc instructions from bpf_jit.h Balamuruhan S
2020-04-28 16:19 ` Naveen N. Rao
2020-04-24 7:08 ` [RFC PATCH v2 5/7] powerpc/ppc-opcode: reuse raw instruction macros to stringify Balamuruhan S
2020-04-24 7:08 ` [RFC PATCH v2 6/7] powerpc/ppc-opcode: fold PPC_INST_* macros into PPC_RAW_* macros Balamuruhan S
2020-04-24 7:08 ` [RFC PATCH v2 7/7] powerpc/selftest: reuse ppc-opcode macros to avoid redundancy Balamuruhan S
2020-04-28 16:14 ` Naveen N. Rao
2020-04-29 10:06 ` Michael Ellerman
2020-04-29 14:17 ` Naveen N. Rao
2020-04-30 2:41 ` Michael Ellerman
2020-04-30 11:57 ` Naveen N. Rao
2020-05-26 7:45 ` Balamuruhan S [this message]
2020-04-28 16:15 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] consolidate PowerPC instruction encoding macros Naveen N. Rao
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=863653096d265d07ca58118294e1549753dd1ff2.camel@linux.ibm.com \
--to=bala24@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr \
--cc=jniethe5@gmail.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=sandipan@linux.ibm.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).