* Sim bfin build failure with gcc 11
@ 2021-05-24 0:51 Simon Marchi
2021-05-24 1:37 ` Mike Frysinger
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Simon Marchi @ 2021-05-24 0:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches
I see this with gcc 11:
$ ccache gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DWITH_DEFAULT_MODEL='"bf537"' -DWITH_DEFAULT_ALIGNMENT=STRICT_ALIGNMENT -DWITH_TARGET_BYTE_ORDER=BFD_ENDIAN_LITTLE -DWITH_HW=1 -DDEFAULT_INLINE=0 -Wall -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wpointer-arith -Wpointer-sign -Wno-unused -Wunused-value -Wunused-function -Wno-switch -Wno-char-subscripts -Wmissing-prototypes -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wempty-body -Wmissing-parameter-type -Wold-style-declaration -Werror -I. -I/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin -I../common -I/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/../common -I../../include -I/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/../../include -I../../bfd -I/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/../../bfd -I../../opcodes -I/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/../../opcodes -I/usr/include/SDL -D_GNU_SOURCE=1 -D_REENTRANT -DHAVE_SDL -g3 -O0 -fsanitize=address -fmax-errors=1 -c -o dv-bfin_otp.o -MT dv-bfin_otp.o -MMD -MP -MF .deps/dv-bfin_otp.Tpo /home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c
/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c: In function ‘bfin_otp_write_page’:
/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c:94:3: error: ‘bfin_otp_write_page_val’ accessing 16 bytes in a region of size 4 [-Werror=stringop-overflow=]
94 | bfin_otp_write_page_val (otp, page, (void *)&otp->data0);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c:94:3: note: referencing argument 3 of type ‘bu64 *’ {aka ‘long unsigned int *’}
/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c:81:1: note: in a call to function ‘bfin_otp_write_page_val’
81 | bfin_otp_write_page_val (struct bfin_otp *otp, bu16 page, bu64 val[2])
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's not immediately obvious to me why it says that.
Simon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: Sim bfin build failure with gcc 11 2021-05-24 0:51 Sim bfin build failure with gcc 11 Simon Marchi @ 2021-05-24 1:37 ` Mike Frysinger 2021-05-24 1:41 ` Simon Marchi 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Mike Frysinger @ 2021-05-24 1:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Simon Marchi; +Cc: gdb-patches On 23 May 2021 20:51, Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches wrote: > I see this with gcc 11: > > $ ccache gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DWITH_DEFAULT_MODEL='"bf537"' -DWITH_DEFAULT_ALIGNMENT=STRICT_ALIGNMENT -DWITH_TARGET_BYTE_ORDER=BFD_ENDIAN_LITTLE -DWITH_HW=1 -DDEFAULT_INLINE=0 -Wall -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wpointer-arith -Wpointer-sign -Wno-unused -Wunused-value -Wunused-function -Wno-switch -Wno-char-subscripts -Wmissing-prototypes -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wempty-body -Wmissing-parameter-type -Wold-style-declaration -Werror -I. -I/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin -I../common -I/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/../common -I../../include -I/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/../../include -I../../bfd -I/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/../../bfd -I../../opcodes -I/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/../../opcodes -I/usr/include/SDL -D_GNU_SOURCE=1 -D_REENTRANT -DHAVE_SDL -g3 -O0 -fsanitize=address -fmax-errors=1 -c -o dv-bfin_otp.o -MT dv-bfin_otp.o -MMD -MP -MF .deps/dv-bfin_otp.Tpo /home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c > /home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c: In function ‘bfin_otp_write_page’: > /home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c:94:3: error: ‘bfin_otp_write_page_val’ accessing 16 bytes in a region of size 4 [-Werror=stringop-overflow=] > 94 | bfin_otp_write_page_val (otp, page, (void *)&otp->data0); > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > /home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c:94:3: note: referencing argument 3 of type ‘bu64 *’ {aka ‘long unsigned int *’} > /home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c:81:1: note: in a call to function ‘bfin_otp_write_page_val’ > 81 | bfin_otp_write_page_val (struct bfin_otp *otp, bu16 page, bu64 val[2]) > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > It's not immediately obvious to me why it says that. gcc really wants its pointer types to be in harmony. i cheated here. write_page_val wants a pointer to an array of 2 64-bit values. i know the otp struct has "bu64 data0, data1, data2, data3;", and taking the address of data0 has the same memory layout as if it were "bu64 data[3];". but with the fortify work gcc has long been doing, they've stopped accepting these kinds of hacks. this code is not perf sensitive, so i can be less "clever" while keeping the compiler happy. -mike commit 3cc4ee83adf2f6e2ab21e32f7d5942b1d1803a04 Author: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> Date: Sun May 23 21:35:32 2021 -0400 sim: bfin: fix build warnings w/newer gcc The bfin_otp_write_page_val func wants a pointer to an bu64[2] array, but this code passes it a pointer to a single bu64. It's in a struct with a known compatible layout: bu64 data0, data1, data2, data3; But gcc doesn't allow these kinds of tricks anymore. Use the more verbose form to make the compiler happy since this is not performance sensitive code. diff --git a/sim/bfin/ChangeLog b/sim/bfin/ChangeLog index 1ebf6818ac77..9c517d20bbeb 100644 --- a/sim/bfin/ChangeLog +++ b/sim/bfin/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2021-05-23 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> + + * dv-bfin_otp.c (bfin_otp_write_page): Call bfin_otp_write_page_val2. + 2021-05-23 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> * dv-bfin_cec.c: Include strings.h. diff --git a/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c b/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c index 6cf1c8155c62..65afdf58b27f 100644 --- a/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c +++ b/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ bfin_otp_write_page_val2 (struct bfin_otp *otp, bu16 page, bu64 lo, bu64 hi) static void bfin_otp_write_page (struct bfin_otp *otp, bu16 page) { - bfin_otp_write_page_val (otp, page, (void *)&otp->data0); + bfin_otp_write_page_val2 (otp, page, otp->data0, otp->data1); } static unsigned ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Sim bfin build failure with gcc 11 2021-05-24 1:37 ` Mike Frysinger @ 2021-05-24 1:41 ` Simon Marchi 2021-05-24 2:16 ` Mike Frysinger 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Simon Marchi @ 2021-05-24 1:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gdb-patches On 2021-05-23 9:37 p.m., Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 23 May 2021 20:51, Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches wrote: >> I see this with gcc 11: >> >> $ ccache gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DWITH_DEFAULT_MODEL='"bf537"' -DWITH_DEFAULT_ALIGNMENT=STRICT_ALIGNMENT -DWITH_TARGET_BYTE_ORDER=BFD_ENDIAN_LITTLE -DWITH_HW=1 -DDEFAULT_INLINE=0 -Wall -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wpointer-arith -Wpointer-sign -Wno-unused -Wunused-value -Wunused-function -Wno-switch -Wno-char-subscripts -Wmissing-prototypes -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wempty-body -Wmissing-parameter-type -Wold-style-declaration -Werror -I. -I/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin -I../common -I/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/../common -I../../include -I/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/../../include -I../../bfd -I/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/../../bfd -I../../opcodes -I/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/../../opcodes -I/usr/include/SDL -D_GNU_SOURCE=1 -D_REENTRANT -DHAVE_SDL -g3 -O0 -fsanitize=address -fmax-errors=1 -c -o dv-bfin_otp.o -MT dv-bfin_otp.o -MMD -MP -MF .deps/dv-bfin_otp.Tpo /home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c >> /home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c: In function ‘bfin_otp_write_page’: >> /home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c:94:3: error: ‘bfin_otp_write_page_val’ accessing 16 bytes in a region of size 4 [-Werror=stringop-overflow=] >> 94 | bfin_otp_write_page_val (otp, page, (void *)&otp->data0); >> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> /home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c:94:3: note: referencing argument 3 of type ‘bu64 *’ {aka ‘long unsigned int *’} >> /home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c:81:1: note: in a call to function ‘bfin_otp_write_page_val’ >> 81 | bfin_otp_write_page_val (struct bfin_otp *otp, bu16 page, bu64 val[2]) >> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> It's not immediately obvious to me why it says that. > > gcc really wants its pointer types to be in harmony. i cheated here. > > write_page_val wants a pointer to an array of 2 64-bit values. i know the > otp struct has "bu64 data0, data1, data2, data3;", and taking the address > of data0 has the same memory layout as if it were "bu64 data[3];". but with > the fortify work gcc has long been doing, they've stopped accepting these > kinds of hacks. > > this code is not perf sensitive, so i can be less "clever" while keeping the > compiler happy. > -mike Ah, I see. Well if what you want is make sure the fields are contiguous, why not make that an array of four bu32 instead? Simon ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Sim bfin build failure with gcc 11 2021-05-24 1:41 ` Simon Marchi @ 2021-05-24 2:16 ` Mike Frysinger 2021-05-29 1:52 ` Simon Marchi 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Mike Frysinger @ 2021-05-24 2:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Simon Marchi; +Cc: gdb-patches On 23 May 2021 21:41, Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches wrote: > On 2021-05-23 9:37 p.m., Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On 23 May 2021 20:51, Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches wrote: > >> I see this with gcc 11: > >> > >> $ ccache gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DWITH_DEFAULT_MODEL='"bf537"' -DWITH_DEFAULT_ALIGNMENT=STRICT_ALIGNMENT -DWITH_TARGET_BYTE_ORDER=BFD_ENDIAN_LITTLE -DWITH_HW=1 -DDEFAULT_INLINE=0 -Wall -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wpointer-arith -Wpointer-sign -Wno-unused -Wunused-value -Wunused-function -Wno-switch -Wno-char-subscripts -Wmissing-prototypes -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wempty-body -Wmissing-parameter-type -Wold-style-declaration -Werror -I. -I/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin -I../common -I/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/../common -I../../include -I/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/../../include -I../../bfd -I/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/../../bfd -I../../opcodes -I/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/../../opcodes -I/usr/include/SDL -D_GNU_SOURCE=1 -D_REENTRANT -DHAVE_SDL -g3 -O0 -fsanitize=address -fmax-errors=1 -c -o dv-bfin_otp.o -MT dv-bfin_otp.o -MMD -MP -MF .deps/dv-bfin_otp.Tpo /home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c > >> /home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c: In function ‘bfin_otp_write_page’: > >> /home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c:94:3: error: ‘bfin_otp_write_page_val’ accessing 16 bytes in a region of size 4 [-Werror=stringop-overflow=] > >> 94 | bfin_otp_write_page_val (otp, page, (void *)&otp->data0); > >> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> /home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c:94:3: note: referencing argument 3 of type ‘bu64 *’ {aka ‘long unsigned int *’} > >> /home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c:81:1: note: in a call to function ‘bfin_otp_write_page_val’ > >> 81 | bfin_otp_write_page_val (struct bfin_otp *otp, bu16 page, bu64 val[2]) > >> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> > >> It's not immediately obvious to me why it says that. > > > > gcc really wants its pointer types to be in harmony. i cheated here. > > > > write_page_val wants a pointer to an array of 2 64-bit values. i know the > > otp struct has "bu64 data0, data1, data2, data3;", and taking the address > > of data0 has the same memory layout as if it were "bu64 data[3];". but with > > the fortify work gcc has long been doing, they've stopped accepting these > > kinds of hacks. > > > > this code is not perf sensitive, so i can be less "clever" while keeping the > > compiler happy. > > Ah, I see. Well if what you want is make sure the fields are > contiguous, why not make that an array of four bu32 instead? i'm not worried about the ordering ... it's a struct, so that's guaranteed. the code uses a style to make it easy to compare against the datasheets and to make it easy to access individual fields. the datasheets have "DATA0" an "DATA1" and such as explicit MMRs, not DATA[3]. but i misread the code and thought it said bu64 data0... when it's really bu32 as you point out. which is why i was being clever in the first place, and the patch i just pushed is incorrect. i guess the existing code was assuming the host cpu was little endian, so doing a manual construction of the 64bit fields is unavoidable. so let's try this again. -mike commit d699be882b42f36677836c320edbf7db24021a30 Author: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> Date: Sun May 23 22:15:01 2021 -0400 sim: bfin: fix the otp fix I misread the code and thought data0/... were bu64 when they were actually bu32. Fix the call to assemble the 2 64-bit values instead of passing the 2 halves of the first 64-bit value. diff --git a/sim/bfin/ChangeLog b/sim/bfin/ChangeLog index 9c517d20bbeb..29dfde8fe6e3 100644 --- a/sim/bfin/ChangeLog +++ b/sim/bfin/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@ +2021-05-23 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> + + * dv-bfin_otp.c (bfin_otp_write_page): Fix args to + bfin_otp_write_page_val2. + 2021-05-23 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> * dv-bfin_otp.c (bfin_otp_write_page): Call bfin_otp_write_page_val2. diff --git a/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c b/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c index 65afdf58b27f..cdc010ae551b 100644 --- a/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c +++ b/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c @@ -91,7 +91,8 @@ bfin_otp_write_page_val2 (struct bfin_otp *otp, bu16 page, bu64 lo, bu64 hi) static void bfin_otp_write_page (struct bfin_otp *otp, bu16 page) { - bfin_otp_write_page_val2 (otp, page, otp->data0, otp->data1); + bfin_otp_write_page_val2 (otp, page, (bu64)otp->data1 | otp->data0, + (bu64)otp->data3 | otp->data2); } static unsigned ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Sim bfin build failure with gcc 11 2021-05-24 2:16 ` Mike Frysinger @ 2021-05-29 1:52 ` Simon Marchi 2021-05-29 3:32 ` Mike Frysinger 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Simon Marchi @ 2021-05-29 1:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gdb-patches On 2021-05-23 10:16 p.m., Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 23 May 2021 21:41, Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches wrote: >> On 2021-05-23 9:37 p.m., Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> On 23 May 2021 20:51, Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches wrote: >>>> I see this with gcc 11: >>>> >>>> $ ccache gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DWITH_DEFAULT_MODEL='"bf537"' -DWITH_DEFAULT_ALIGNMENT=STRICT_ALIGNMENT -DWITH_TARGET_BYTE_ORDER=BFD_ENDIAN_LITTLE -DWITH_HW=1 -DDEFAULT_INLINE=0 -Wall -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wpointer-arith -Wpointer-sign -Wno-unused -Wunused-value -Wunused-function -Wno-switch -Wno-char-subscripts -Wmissing-prototypes -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wempty-body -Wmissing-parameter-type -Wold-style-declaration -Werror -I. -I/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin -I../common -I/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/../common -I../../include -I/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/../../include -I../../bfd -I/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/../../bfd -I../../opcodes -I/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/../../opcodes -I/usr/include/SDL -D_GNU_SOURCE=1 -D_REENTRANT -DHAVE_SDL -g3 -O0 -fsanitize=address -fmax-errors=1 -c -o dv-bfin_otp.o -MT dv-bfin_otp.o -MMD -MP -MF .deps/dv-bfin_otp.Tpo /home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c >>>> /home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c: In function ‘bfin_otp_write_page’: >>>> /home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c:94:3: error: ‘bfin_otp_write_page_val’ accessing 16 bytes in a region of size 4 [-Werror=stringop-overflow=] >>>> 94 | bfin_otp_write_page_val (otp, page, (void *)&otp->data0); >>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> /home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c:94:3: note: referencing argument 3 of type ‘bu64 *’ {aka ‘long unsigned int *’} >>>> /home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c:81:1: note: in a call to function ‘bfin_otp_write_page_val’ >>>> 81 | bfin_otp_write_page_val (struct bfin_otp *otp, bu16 page, bu64 val[2]) >>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> >>>> It's not immediately obvious to me why it says that. >>> >>> gcc really wants its pointer types to be in harmony. i cheated here. >>> >>> write_page_val wants a pointer to an array of 2 64-bit values. i know the >>> otp struct has "bu64 data0, data1, data2, data3;", and taking the address >>> of data0 has the same memory layout as if it were "bu64 data[3];". but with >>> the fortify work gcc has long been doing, they've stopped accepting these >>> kinds of hacks. >>> >>> this code is not perf sensitive, so i can be less "clever" while keeping the >>> compiler happy. >> >> Ah, I see. Well if what you want is make sure the fields are >> contiguous, why not make that an array of four bu32 instead? > > i'm not worried about the ordering ... it's a struct, so that's guaranteed. > the code uses a style to make it easy to compare against the datasheets and > to make it easy to access individual fields. the datasheets have "DATA0" > an "DATA1" and such as explicit MMRs, not DATA[3]. > > but i misread the code and thought it said bu64 data0... when it's really > bu32 as you point out. which is why i was being clever in the first place, > and the patch i just pushed is incorrect. > > i guess the existing code was assuming the host cpu was little endian, so > doing a manual construction of the 64bit fields is unavoidable. so let's > try this again. > -mike > > commit d699be882b42f36677836c320edbf7db24021a30 > Author: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> > Date: Sun May 23 22:15:01 2021 -0400 > > sim: bfin: fix the otp fix > > I misread the code and thought data0/... were bu64 when they were > actually bu32. Fix the call to assemble the 2 64-bit values instead > of passing the 2 halves of the first 64-bit value. > > diff --git a/sim/bfin/ChangeLog b/sim/bfin/ChangeLog > index 9c517d20bbeb..29dfde8fe6e3 100644 > --- a/sim/bfin/ChangeLog > +++ b/sim/bfin/ChangeLog > @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@ > +2021-05-23 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> > + > + * dv-bfin_otp.c (bfin_otp_write_page): Fix args to > + bfin_otp_write_page_val2. > + > 2021-05-23 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> > > * dv-bfin_otp.c (bfin_otp_write_page): Call bfin_otp_write_page_val2. > diff --git a/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c b/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c > index 65afdf58b27f..cdc010ae551b 100644 > --- a/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c > +++ b/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c > @@ -91,7 +91,8 @@ bfin_otp_write_page_val2 (struct bfin_otp *otp, bu16 page, bu64 lo, bu64 hi) > static void > bfin_otp_write_page (struct bfin_otp *otp, bu16 page) > { > - bfin_otp_write_page_val2 (otp, page, otp->data0, otp->data1); > + bfin_otp_write_page_val2 (otp, page, (bu64)otp->data1 | otp->data0, > + (bu64)otp->data3 | otp->data2); I really don't know what this is doing but... did you mean to have some shifts in there? Simon ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Sim bfin build failure with gcc 11 2021-05-29 1:52 ` Simon Marchi @ 2021-05-29 3:32 ` Mike Frysinger 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Mike Frysinger @ 2021-05-29 3:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Simon Marchi; +Cc: gdb-patches On 28 May 2021 21:52, Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches wrote: > On 2021-05-23 10:16 p.m., Mike Frysinger wrote: > > static void > > bfin_otp_write_page (struct bfin_otp *otp, bu16 page) > > { > > - bfin_otp_write_page_val2 (otp, page, otp->data0, otp->data1); > > + bfin_otp_write_page_val2 (otp, page, (bu64)otp->data1 | otp->data0, > > + (bu64)otp->data3 | otp->data2); > > I really don't know what this is doing but... did you mean to have some > shifts in there? err, yeah. thanks. -mike commit f006d9e205f729aad48c0876eb8cd8feb70a6972 Author: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> Date: Fri May 28 23:29:40 2021 -0400 sim: bfin: fix the otp fix fix Need to shift the upper 32-bits and not just combine directly with the lower 32-bits. diff --git a/sim/bfin/ChangeLog b/sim/bfin/ChangeLog index 29dfde8fe6e3..e5b644990947 100644 --- a/sim/bfin/ChangeLog +++ b/sim/bfin/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2021-05-28 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> + + * dv-bfin_otp.c (bfin_otp_write_page): Shift data1 & data3 by 32-bits. + 2021-05-23 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> * dv-bfin_otp.c (bfin_otp_write_page): Fix args to diff --git a/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c b/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c index cdc010ae551b..a9f768d0c0ea 100644 --- a/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c +++ b/sim/bfin/dv-bfin_otp.c @@ -91,8 +91,8 @@ bfin_otp_write_page_val2 (struct bfin_otp *otp, bu16 page, bu64 lo, bu64 hi) static void bfin_otp_write_page (struct bfin_otp *otp, bu16 page) { - bfin_otp_write_page_val2 (otp, page, (bu64)otp->data1 | otp->data0, - (bu64)otp->data3 | otp->data2); + bfin_otp_write_page_val2 (otp, page, ((bu64)otp->data1 << 32) | otp->data0, + ((bu64)otp->data3 << 32) | otp->data2); } static unsigned ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-05-29 3:32 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2021-05-24 0:51 Sim bfin build failure with gcc 11 Simon Marchi 2021-05-24 1:37 ` Mike Frysinger 2021-05-24 1:41 ` Simon Marchi 2021-05-24 2:16 ` Mike Frysinger 2021-05-29 1:52 ` Simon Marchi 2021-05-29 3:32 ` Mike Frysinger
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).