From: Alexander Holler <holler@ahsoftware.de>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v3] ARM: Avoid compiler optimization for usages of readb, writeb and friends.
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2011 19:47:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D1F76D7.8060603@ahsoftware.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D1F7197.6010607@googlemail.com>
Am 01.01.2011 19:25, schrieb Dirk Behme:
> On 01.01.2011 18:52, Alexander Holler wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Am 01.01.2011 13:04, schrieb Dirk Behme:
>>> On 22.12.2010 12:04, Alexander Holler wrote:
>>>> gcc 4.5.1 seems to ignore (at least some) volatile definitions,
>>>> avoid that as done in the kernel.
>>>>
>>>> Reading C99 6.7.3 8 and the comment 114) there, I think it is a bug of
>>>> that
>>>> gcc version to ignore the volatile type qualifier used e.g. in
>>>> __arch_getl().
>>>> Anyway, using a definition as in the kernel headers avoids such
>>>> optimizations when
>>>> gcc 4.5.1 is used.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe the headers as used in the current linux-kernel should be used,
>>>> but to avoid large changes, I've just added a small change to the
>>>> current headers.
>>
>>> Do you like to test the patch in the attachment? I named it 'v4'.
>>>
>>> After some thinking and testing, it seems to me that the volatile
>>> optimization issue this patch shall fix is only with the readx()
>>> macros.
>>> So the idea is to drop all writex() changes done in the v3 version of
>>> this patch. With dropping the writex() changes, we would drop all
>>> issues
>>> we discussed with e.g. the GCC statement-expression and the do while
>>> workaround, too.
>>
>> I've come across a bug which reads as the problem might be fixed in
>> gcc 4.5.2:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45052
>>
>> I will test gcc 4.5.2 in the next days.
>
> Have you been able to test v4 of the patch I sent with gcc 4.5.1?
No, sorry, I don't have a test case for consequent write* and I will
have to write one. I will do such, when testing gcc 4.5.2 (sometimes in
the next days).
Regards,
Alexander
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-01-01 18:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-12-22 11:04 [U-Boot] [PATCH v3] ARM: Avoid compiler optimization for usages of readb, writeb and friends Alexander Holler
2010-12-22 14:50 ` Dirk Behme
2010-12-22 15:07 ` Alexander Holler
2011-01-01 12:04 ` Dirk Behme
2011-01-01 17:52 ` Alexander Holler
2011-01-01 18:25 ` Dirk Behme
2011-01-01 18:47 ` Alexander Holler [this message]
2011-01-01 19:21 ` Dirk Behme
2011-01-02 12:43 ` Alexander Holler
2011-01-02 13:29 ` Dirk Behme
2011-01-02 21:00 ` Alexander Holler
2011-01-10 14:53 ` Alexander Holler
2011-01-10 15:05 ` Wolfgang Denk
2011-01-11 3:53 ` Alexander Holler
2011-01-09 22:25 ` Wolfgang Denk
2011-01-10 16:13 ` Dirk Behme
2011-01-17 21:59 ` Wolfgang Denk
2011-01-09 22:19 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH v4] ARM: Avoid compiler optimization for " Wolfgang Denk
2011-01-12 15:17 ` Thomas Weber
2011-01-12 15:39 ` Alexander Holler
2011-01-12 16:40 ` Wolfgang Denk
2011-01-12 16:49 ` Alexander Holler
2011-01-15 13:13 ` Albert ARIBAUD
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=4D1F76D7.8060603@ahsoftware.de \
--to=holler@ahsoftware.de \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/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