From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Cc: "Uecker, Martin" <Martin.Uecker@med.uni-goettingen.de>,
"gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>,
"amonakov@ispras.ru" <amonakov@ispras.ru>,
"ubizjak@gmail.com" <ubizjak@gmail.com>,
"luto@kernel.org" <luto@kernel.org>,
linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Re: typeof and operands in named address spaces
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 12:10:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201116111056.GA3121378@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFiYyc1-qtU+4Tj3mkz=c608zeP8feyuD6UyRhQv19qjKjJcvg@mail.gmail.com>
( restoring at least linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org, since that seems
to have gone missing )
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 10:11:50AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 11:53 AM Uecker, Martin
> <Martin.Uecker@med.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 07:31:42PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > > Hello!
> > > >
> > > > I was looking at the recent linux patch series [1] where segment
> > > > qualifiers (named address spaces) were introduced to handle percpu
> > > > variables. In the patch [2], the author mentions that:
> > > >
> > > > --q--
> > > > Unfortunately, gcc does not provide a way to remove segment
> > > > qualifiers, which is needed to use typeof() to create local instances
> > > > of the per-cpu variable. For this reason, do not use the segment
> > > > qualifier for per-cpu variables, and do casting using the segment
> > > > qualifier instead.
> > > > --/q--
> > >
> > > C in general does not provide means to strip qualifiers. We recently had
> > > a _lot_ of 'fun' trying to strip volatile from a type, see here:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/875zimp0ay.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au
> > >
> > > which resulted in the current __unqual_scalar_typeof() hack.
> > >
> > > If we're going to do compiler extentions here, can we pretty please have
> > > a sane means of modifying qualifiers in general?
> >
> > Another way to drop qualifiers is using a cast. So you
> > can use typeof twice:
> >
> > typeof((typeof(_var))_var) tmp__;
> >
> > This also works for non-scalars but this is a GCC extension.
> >
> >
> > WG14 plans to standardize typeof. I would like to hear opinion
> > whether we should have typeof drop qualifiers or not.
> >
> > Currently, it does not do this on all compilers I tested
> > (except _Atomic on GCC) and there are also use cases for
> > keeping qualifiers. This is an argument for keeping qualifiers
> > should we standardize it, but then we need a way to drop
> > qualifiers.
> >
> >
> > lvalue conversion drops qualifers in C. In GCC, this is not
> > implemented correctly as it is unobvervable in standard C
> > (but it using typeof).
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97702
> >
> > A have a working patch in preparation to change this. Then you
> > could use
> >
> > typeof( ((void)0, x) )
Neat, that actually already works with clang. And I suppose we can use
the above GCC extention until such time as that GCC is fixed.
See below..
> > to drop qualifiers. But this would then
> > also do array-to-pointer conversion. I am not sure
> > whether this is a problem.
I don't _think_ so, but..
> > Of course, we could also introduce a new feature for
> > dropping qualifiers. Thoughts?
> Just add a new qualifier that un-qualifies?
>
> _Unqual volatile T x;
>
> is T with volatile (evenually) removed. Or just a way to drop
> all using _Unqual?
>
> _Unqual T x;
>
> removing all qualifiers from T. Or add a special _Unqual_all
> to achieve that. I think removing a specific qualification is
> useful. Leaves cases like
>
> _Unqual volatile volatile T x;
>
> to be specified (that is ordering and cancellation of the
> unqual and qual variants of qualifiers).
I rather like this, however I think I'd prefer the syntax be something
like:
_Unqual T x;
for removing all qualifiers, and:
_Unqual(volatile) volatile T X;
for stripping specific qualifiers. The syntax as proposed above seems
very error prone to me.
---
Subject: compiler: Improve __unqual_typeof()
Improve our __unqual_scalar_typeof() implementation by relying on C
dropping qualifiers for lvalue convesions. There is one small catch in
that GCC is currently known broken in this respect, however it happens
to have a C language extention that achieves the very same, it drops
qualifiers on casts.
This gets rid of the _Generic() usage and should improve compile times
(less preprocessor output) as well as increases the capabilities of the
macros.
XXX: I've only verified the below actually compiles, I've not verified
the generated code is actually 'correct'.
Suggested-by: "Uecker, Martin" <Martin.Uecker@med.uni-goettingen.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---
diff --git a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
index 74c6c0486eed..3c5cb52c12f9 100644
--- a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
+++ b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
@@ -156,3 +156,11 @@
#else
#define __diag_GCC_8(s)
#endif
+
+/*
+ * GCC has a bug where lvalue conversion doesn't drop qualifiers, use a GCC
+ * extention instead. GCC drops qualifiers on a cast, so use a double typeof().
+ *
+ * https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97702
+ */
+#define __unqual_typeof(type) typeof( (typeof(type))type )
diff --git a/include/linux/compiler_types.h b/include/linux/compiler_types.h
index ac3fa37a84f9..4a6e2caab17b 100644
--- a/include/linux/compiler_types.h
+++ b/include/linux/compiler_types.h
@@ -250,27 +250,14 @@ struct ftrace_likely_data {
/* Are two types/vars the same type (ignoring qualifiers)? */
#define __same_type(a, b) __builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(a), typeof(b))
+#ifndef __unqual_typeof
/*
- * __unqual_scalar_typeof(x) - Declare an unqualified scalar type, leaving
- * non-scalar types unchanged.
+ * lvalue conversion drops qualifiers
*/
-/*
- * Prefer C11 _Generic for better compile-times and simpler code. Note: 'char'
- * is not type-compatible with 'signed char', and we define a separate case.
- */
-#define __scalar_type_to_expr_cases(type) \
- unsigned type: (unsigned type)0, \
- signed type: (signed type)0
-
-#define __unqual_scalar_typeof(x) typeof( \
- _Generic((x), \
- char: (char)0, \
- __scalar_type_to_expr_cases(char), \
- __scalar_type_to_expr_cases(short), \
- __scalar_type_to_expr_cases(int), \
- __scalar_type_to_expr_cases(long), \
- __scalar_type_to_expr_cases(long long), \
- default: (x)))
+#define __unqual_typeof(type) typeof( ((void)0, type) )
+#endif
+
+#define __unqual_scalar_typeof(type) __unqual_typeof(type)
/* Is this type a native word size -- useful for atomic operations */
#define __native_word(t) \
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-16 11:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-15 10:51 Uecker, Martin
2020-11-16 9:11 ` Richard Biener
2020-11-16 11:10 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2020-11-16 11:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-16 12:23 ` Uecker, Martin
2020-11-16 13:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-17 19:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-11-17 19:25 ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-11-17 19:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-11-17 21:10 ` Will Deacon
2020-11-17 22:15 ` Will Deacon
2020-11-17 21:23 ` Uecker, Martin
2020-11-17 19:47 ` Linus Torvalds
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=20201116111056.GA3121378@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=Martin.Uecker@med.uni-goettingen.de \
--cc=amonakov@ispras.ru \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ubizjak@gmail.com \
--cc=will@kernel.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).