From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F292C433DF for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 14:04:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EFC720663 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 14:04:56 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4EFC720663 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=csgroup.eu Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CBrdJ6F9ZzDqQy for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 01:04:52 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=csgroup.eu (client-ip=93.17.236.30; helo=pegase1.c-s.fr; envelope-from=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=csgroup.eu Received: from pegase1.c-s.fr (pegase1.c-s.fr [93.17.236.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CBrWV0HwLzDqGn for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 00:59:48 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost (mailhub1-int [192.168.12.234]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CBrWM2FxTzB09bD; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:59:43 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c-s.fr Received: from pegase1.c-s.fr ([192.168.12.234]) by localhost (pegase1.c-s.fr [192.168.12.234]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l9LN1soMzp6U; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:59:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from messagerie.si.c-s.fr (messagerie.si.c-s.fr [192.168.25.192]) by pegase1.c-s.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CBrWM1QpszB09bB; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:59:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by messagerie.si.c-s.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0E878B813; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:59:44 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at c-s.fr Received: from messagerie.si.c-s.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (messagerie.si.c-s.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id xOoSsjkuF602; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:59:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.4.90] (unknown [192.168.4.90]) by messagerie.si.c-s.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id F16278B811; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:59:43 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: force inlining of csum_partial() to avoid multiple csum_partial() with GCC10 To: Segher Boessenkool References: <20201015132512.GG2672@gate.crashing.org> From: Christophe Leroy Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:59:44 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201015132512.GG2672@gate.crashing.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Paul Mackerras , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Le 15/10/2020 à 15:25, Segher Boessenkool a écrit : > Hi! > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 10:52:20AM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote: >> With gcc9 I get: > > > >> With gcc10 I get: > > > >> gcc10 defines multiple versions of csum_partial() which are just >> an unconditionnal branch to __csum_partial(). > > It doesn't inline it, yes. > > Could you open a GCC PR for this please? > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97445 Christophe