From: Palmer Dabbelt <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: email@example.com, Jim Wilson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] RISC-V: Implement __clear_cache via __builtin___clear_cache
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2022 14:59:40 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <mhng-e53b622e-a106-4d70-a652-bcdb9a0122e9@palmer-ri-x1c9a> (raw)
On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 12:56:48 PDT (-0700), Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> We have had an implementation of __builtin___clear_cache since the
> beginning, but didn't have the cooresponding __clear_cache library
> routine implemented. This directly conflicts the GCC manual in a
> handful of places, which indicates that __clear_cache should work and
> that __builtin_clear_cache should function the same way as __clear_cache
> by ethier calling it or inlining the functionality.
> This patch simply implements __clear_cache via __builtin___clear_cache.
> This should be safe as we always have clear_cache insn so therefor
> __builtin___clear_cache will never fall back to calling __clear_cache.
> I'm not actually sure that silently implementing clear_cache as a NOP
> when there is no ISA defined mechanism for icache synchronization is the
> right way to go, but that's really a different discussion.
> This was reported as Bug 94136, which is a year old but was categorized
> as a documentation bug. I believe that categorization was incorrect:
> having an empty __clear_cache library routine is simply incorrect
> behavior, the fact that __builtin___clear_cache happens to be
> implemented as a libc call on Linux is just a red herring suggesting the
> documentation fix to point out the name difference. I view this new
> behavior as conforming to the existing documentation: we're just
> inlining the __clear_cache implementation, even if that implementation
> happens to be a call to a very similar looking libc routine.
> PR target/94136
> * config/riscv/riscv.h (CLEAR_INSN_CACHE): New macro.
> Passes riscv-linux mulilib with no new failures. OK for trunk and
Oops, accidentally hit send before checking the test results. There's a
bunch of failures, not sure if they're new though as I was trying to
bisect them down and have a dirty tree. This might take a few
> backports to gcc-11, gcc-12?
> Changes since v1 <email@example.com>:
> * Extra "_" as per Jim's comment.
> gcc/config/riscv/riscv.h | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> diff --git a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.h b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.h
> index acae68ebb2d..bb0dcb651d5 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.h
> +++ b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.h
> @@ -1080,4 +1080,9 @@ extern void riscv_remove_unneeded_save_restore_calls (void);
> #define REGISTER_TARGET_PRAGMAS() riscv_register_pragmas ()
> +/* We always have a "clear_cache" insn, which means __builtin__clear_cache will
> + never emit a call to __clear_cache. */
> +#undef CLEAR_INSN_CACHE
> +#define CLEAR_INSN_CACHE(BEG, END) __builtin___clear_cache((BEG), (END));
> #endif /* ! GCC_RISCV_H */
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-14 21:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-14 19:56 Palmer Dabbelt
2022-10-14 21:59 ` Palmer Dabbelt [this message]
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:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* 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).