From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Robert Hancock <hancockr@shaw.ca>,
Christian Kujau <lists@nerdbynature.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: undefined reference to __udivdi3 (gcc-4.3)
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 10:29:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <48217674.8080903@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a6dd201e0149f8dbdf10a7a194673833@kernel.crashing.org>
Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> I assume it's one or both of these loops in arch/x86/xen/time.c
>> do_stolen_accounting() that are being optimized into a divide which
>> generates a libgcc call:
>>
>> while (stolen >= NS_PER_TICK) {
>> ticks++;
>> stolen -= NS_PER_TICK;
>> }
>>
>> or
>>
>> while (blocked >= NS_PER_TICK) {
>> ticks++;
>> blocked -= NS_PER_TICK;
>> }
>
> That looks plausible.
Yep. Probably both.
>> Not sure if that is a sustainable fix, though..
>
> It should be. The asm() arg tells GCC that the asm() could modify
> "ns" in some way, so GCC cannot optimise away the loop, since it
> doesn't have the required info about the induction variable to do
> that.
Yep, it's guaranteed to work. But it's an ugly hack to work around an
over-enthusiastic compiler, and so is an inherent maintainability burden.
I think the correct fix here is to introduce an iter_div_rem() function
which contains this hack, so we can avoid scattering it all over the
place. I'll cook up a patch.
J
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-07 9:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <fa.QTbvQYXhEm5VNP5dvkl5JG7NHYQ@ifi.uio.no>
2008-05-04 17:35 ` undefined reference to __udivdi3 (gcc-4.3) Robert Hancock
2008-05-04 22:19 ` Segher Boessenkool
2008-05-07 9:29 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge [this message]
2008-05-08 15:16 ` [PATCH] common implementation of iterative div/mod Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-05-08 20:26 ` Andrew Morton
2008-05-08 22:00 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-05-08 20:52 ` Segher Boessenkool
2008-05-08 21:57 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-05-09 11:45 ` Christian Kujau
2008-05-14 6:46 ` Andrew Morton
2008-05-14 7:33 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-05-14 8:33 ` Andi Kleen
2008-05-14 9:55 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-05-14 10:50 ` Andi Kleen
2008-05-14 10:52 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-05-14 11:21 ` Andi Kleen
2008-05-14 12:58 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-05-04 10:59 undefined reference to __udivdi3 (gcc-4.3) Christian Kujau
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=48217674.8080903@goop.org \
--to=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=hancockr@shaw.ca \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lists@nerdbynature.de \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=segher@kernel.crashing.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