From: Peter Bergner <bergner@linux.ibm.com>
To: Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com>
Cc: Waldemar Brodkorb <wbx@openadk.org>, binutils@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: regression with binutils 2.28 for ppc
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 22:21:30 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1f433717-0b26-4c53-6f21-9efeab7dcdc7@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yg73nJR9450cdsFA@squeak.grove.modra.org>
On 2/17/22 7:34 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 02:03:24PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
>> On 2/17/22 3:28 AM, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote:
>>> -mcpu=powerpc -mbig-endian -m32 -msoft-float -mcpu=powerpc64 -mno-altivec -mno-vsx
>>
>> So a 32-bit compile, which is why the assembler complains about ptesync.
>
> Not from what you posted there. The last -mcpu=powerpc64 ought to
> enable ppc64. If you remove that, then yes, you'll get a complaint
> about ptesync.
Well it's a 32-bit compile in that the obj is Elf32:
linux$ gcc -m32 -mcpu=powerpc64 simple.c
linux$ file a.out
a.out: ELF 32-bit MSB executable, PowerPC or cisco 4500, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.32, BuildID[sha1]=804e1b0621e258ef9a1e4691d5f0764e4c5e852a, not stripped
That said, the -mcpu=power64 with newish gccs seems to emit a .machine ppc64.
The older gcc I was using seems to emit a ".machine ppc" which is why
I saw the same issue with ptesync when using a new binutils.
>> You could try adding -Wa,-mppc64 or -Wa,-many to your options as a work around.
>> Newish GCCs removed passing -many to the assembler and the commit you
>> mentioned changed handling of sticky cpu options which is exposing the
>> issue.
>
> -Wa cpu hacks won't work any more.
Ah right, thanks for correcting me!
>> The use of those ptesyncs in the kernel really needs to be audited though!
>> If they are legitimate, then the inline assembler needs to wrap their
>> use with ".machine push ; .machine ppc64 ; ptesync ; .machine pop".
>
> Right. Or we should allow the user command line to control the
> assembler, even with -Wa,-many if they so desire. But that's killed
> by that stupid .machine from gcc.
I thought we were moving towards more reliance on .machine and not away
from it? You think we shouldn't be?
> I didn't even get as far as Waldemar. With recent gcc, binutils and
> linux git source my
> ARCH=powerpc CROSS_COMPILE=powerpc-linux- pmac32_defconfig
> kernel compile bombs here:
>
[snip]
> {standard input}:997: Error: unrecognized opcode: `mfsrin'
[snip]
> So, last -mcpu is powerpc64. gas quite correctly flags an error on
> instructions phased out for ppc64.
This is probably the difference between new gccs emiting .machine ppc64
when using -mcpu=powerpc64 and old gccs that emit .machine ppc.
One more confusing thing to have to handle! :-(
Given all the above though, I'm surprised the kernel team hasn't hit
this already and complained to us about it! :-)
Peter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-18 4:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-16 13:35 Waldemar Brodkorb
2022-02-16 14:32 ` Peter Bergner
2022-02-16 18:24 ` Peter Bergner
2022-02-17 9:28 ` Waldemar Brodkorb
2022-02-17 20:03 ` Peter Bergner
2022-02-18 1:34 ` Alan Modra
2022-02-18 4:21 ` Peter Bergner [this message]
2022-02-20 11:58 ` Alan Modra
2022-02-23 8:51 ` Alan Modra
2022-02-23 17:34 ` Waldemar Brodkorb
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=1f433717-0b26-4c53-6f21-9efeab7dcdc7@linux.ibm.com \
--to=bergner@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=amodra@gmail.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=wbx@openadk.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;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).