Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
On 2 February 2017 at 15:43, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 02/02/2017 01:17 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 1 February 2017 at 21:50, Laura Abbott wrote:
>>> On 02/01/2017 09:36 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On 1 February 2017 at 16:58, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 10/19/2016 09:22 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:01:33AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
>>> wrote:
On 2016.10.19 at 08:55 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Well, in the meantime we apparently have to live with it. Unless Will
> is using some unreleased gcc version that nobody else is using and we
> can just ignore it?
Yes, he is using gcc-7 that is unreleased. (It will be released April
next year.)
>>>
>>> Ahh, self-built? So it's not part of some experimental ARM distro
>>> setup and this will be annoying lots of people?
>>
>> Our friendly compiler guys built it, but it's just a snapshot of trunk,
>> so it's all heading towards GCC 7.0. AFAIU, the problematic optimisation
>> is also a mid-end pass, so it would affect other architectures too.
>>
>>> If so, still think that we could just get rid of the ilog2_NaN()
>>> thing as it's not _that_ important, but it's certainly not very
>>> high-priority. Will can do it in his tree too for testing, and it can
>>> remind people to get the gcc problem fixed.
>>
>> I'm carrying the diff below, which fixes arm64 defconfig, but I'm worried
>> that we might be relying on this trick elsewhere. The arm __bad_cmpxchg
>> function, for example.
>>
>> Will
>>
>> --->8
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/log2.h b/include/linux/log2.h
>> index fd7ff3d91e6a..9cf5ad69065d 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/log2.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/log2.h
>> @@ -16,12 +16,6 @@
>> #include
>>
>> /*
>> - * deal with unrepresentable constant logarithms
>> - */
>> -extern __attribute__((const, noreturn))
>> -int ilog2_NaN(void);
>> -
>> -/*
>> * non-constant log of base 2 calculators
>> * - the arch may override these in asm/bitops.h if they can be
>> implemented
>> * more efficiently than using fls() and fls64()
>> @@ -85,7 +79,7 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
>> #define ilog2(n) \
>> (\
>> __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \
>> - (n) < 1 ? ilog2_NaN() : \
>> + (n) < 1 ? 0 : \
>> (n) & (1ULL << 63) ? 63 : \
>> (n) & (1ULL << 62) ? 62 : \
>> (n) & (1ULL << 61) ? 61 : \
>> @@ -149,9 +143,7 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
>> (n) & (1ULL << 3) ? 3 : \
>> (n) & (1ULL << 2) ? 2 : \
>> (n) & (1ULL << 1) ? 1 : \
>> - (n) & (1ULL << 0) ? 0 : \
>> - ilog2_NaN() \
>> -) : \
>> + 0) :\
>> (sizeof(n) <= 4) ? \
>> __ilog2_u32(n) :\
>> __ilog2_u64(n) \
>> @@ -194,7 +186,6 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
>> * @n: parameter
>> *
>> * The first few values calculated by this routine:
>> - * ob2(0) = 0
>> * ob2(1) = 0
>> * ob2(2) = 1
>> * ob2(3) = 2
>>
>
> Reviving this thread as gcc 7 has now hit Fedora rawhide and has this
> same issue. I pulled in the above patch from Will as a temporary work
> around for building. It didn't look like there was consensus on a
> permanent solution though from the thread.
>
I still think order_base_2() is broken, since it may invoke
roundup_pow_of_two() with an input value that is documented as
producing undefined output. I would argue that the below is the
correct fix.
diff --git a/include/linux/log2.h b/include/linux/log2.h
index fd7ff3d91e6a..46523731bec0 100644
--- a/include/linux/log2.h
+++ b/include/linux/log2.h
@@ -203,6 +203,18 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
* ... and so on.
*/
-#define order_base_2(n) ilog2(roundup_pow_of_two(n))
+static inline __attribute__((__const__))
+unsigned long __order_base_2(unsigned long n)
+{
+ return n ? 1UL << fls_long(n - 1) : 1;
+}
+
+#define order_base_2(n)\
+( \
+ __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \
+
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
On 02/02/2017 01:17 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 1 February 2017 at 21:50, Laura Abbott wrote:
>> On 02/01/2017 09:36 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On 1 February 2017 at 16:58, Laura Abbott wrote:
On 10/19/2016 09:22 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:01:33AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
>> wrote:
>>> On 2016.10.19 at 08:55 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Well, in the meantime we apparently have to live with it. Unless Will
is using some unreleased gcc version that nobody else is using and we
can just ignore it?
>>>
>>> Yes, he is using gcc-7 that is unreleased. (It will be released April
>>> next year.)
>>
>> Ahh, self-built? So it's not part of some experimental ARM distro
>> setup and this will be annoying lots of people?
>
> Our friendly compiler guys built it, but it's just a snapshot of trunk,
> so it's all heading towards GCC 7.0. AFAIU, the problematic optimisation
> is also a mid-end pass, so it would affect other architectures too.
>
>> If so, still think that we could just get rid of the ilog2_NaN()
>> thing as it's not _that_ important, but it's certainly not very
>> high-priority. Will can do it in his tree too for testing, and it can
>> remind people to get the gcc problem fixed.
>
> I'm carrying the diff below, which fixes arm64 defconfig, but I'm worried
> that we might be relying on this trick elsewhere. The arm __bad_cmpxchg
> function, for example.
>
> Will
>
> --->8
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/log2.h b/include/linux/log2.h
> index fd7ff3d91e6a..9cf5ad69065d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/log2.h
> +++ b/include/linux/log2.h
> @@ -16,12 +16,6 @@
> #include
>
> /*
> - * deal with unrepresentable constant logarithms
> - */
> -extern __attribute__((const, noreturn))
> -int ilog2_NaN(void);
> -
> -/*
> * non-constant log of base 2 calculators
> * - the arch may override these in asm/bitops.h if they can be
> implemented
> * more efficiently than using fls() and fls64()
> @@ -85,7 +79,7 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
> #define ilog2(n) \
> (\
> __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \
> - (n) < 1 ? ilog2_NaN() : \
> + (n) < 1 ? 0 : \
> (n) & (1ULL << 63) ? 63 : \
> (n) & (1ULL << 62) ? 62 : \
> (n) & (1ULL << 61) ? 61 : \
> @@ -149,9 +143,7 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
> (n) & (1ULL << 3) ? 3 : \
> (n) & (1ULL << 2) ? 2 : \
> (n) & (1ULL << 1) ? 1 : \
> - (n) & (1ULL << 0) ? 0 : \
> - ilog2_NaN() \
> -) : \
> + 0) :\
> (sizeof(n) <= 4) ? \
> __ilog2_u32(n) :\
> __ilog2_u64(n) \
> @@ -194,7 +186,6 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
> * @n: parameter
> *
> * The first few values calculated by this routine:
> - * ob2(0) = 0
> * ob2(1) = 0
> * ob2(2) = 1
> * ob2(3) = 2
>
Reviving this thread as gcc 7 has now hit Fedora rawhide and has this
same issue. I pulled in the above patch from Will as a temporary work
around for building. It didn't look like there was consensus on a
permanent solution though from the thread.
>>>
>>> I still think order_base_2() is broken, since it may invoke
>>> roundup_pow_of_two() with an input value that is documented as
>>> producing undefined output. I would argue that the below is the
>>> correct fix.
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/log2.h b/include/linux/log2.h
>>> index fd7ff3d91e6a..46523731bec0 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/log2.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/log2.h
>>> @@ -203,6 +203,18 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
>>> * ... and so on.
>>> */
>>>
>>> -#define order_base_2(n) ilog2(roundup_pow_of_two(n))
>>> +static inline __attribute__((__const__))
>>> +unsigned long __order_base_2(unsigned long n)
>>> +{
>>> + return n ? 1UL << fls_long(n - 1) : 1;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +#define order_base_2(n)\
>>> +( \
>>> + __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \
>>> + ((n) < 2) ? (n) : \
>>> + ilog2((n) - 1) + 1) : \
>>> + ilog2(__order_base_2(n))\
>>> + )
>>>
>>> #end
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
On 1 February 2017 at 21:50, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 02/01/2017 09:36 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 1 February 2017 at 16:58, Laura Abbott wrote:
>>> On 10/19/2016 09:22 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:01:33AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
> wrote:
>> On 2016.10.19 at 08:55 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, in the meantime we apparently have to live with it. Unless Will
>>> is using some unreleased gcc version that nobody else is using and we
>>> can just ignore it?
>>
>> Yes, he is using gcc-7 that is unreleased. (It will be released April
>> next year.)
>
> Ahh, self-built? So it's not part of some experimental ARM distro
> setup and this will be annoying lots of people?
Our friendly compiler guys built it, but it's just a snapshot of trunk,
so it's all heading towards GCC 7.0. AFAIU, the problematic optimisation
is also a mid-end pass, so it would affect other architectures too.
> If so, still think that we could just get rid of the ilog2_NaN()
> thing as it's not _that_ important, but it's certainly not very
> high-priority. Will can do it in his tree too for testing, and it can
> remind people to get the gcc problem fixed.
I'm carrying the diff below, which fixes arm64 defconfig, but I'm worried
that we might be relying on this trick elsewhere. The arm __bad_cmpxchg
function, for example.
Will
--->8
diff --git a/include/linux/log2.h b/include/linux/log2.h
index fd7ff3d91e6a..9cf5ad69065d 100644
--- a/include/linux/log2.h
+++ b/include/linux/log2.h
@@ -16,12 +16,6 @@
#include
/*
- * deal with unrepresentable constant logarithms
- */
-extern __attribute__((const, noreturn))
-int ilog2_NaN(void);
-
-/*
* non-constant log of base 2 calculators
* - the arch may override these in asm/bitops.h if they can be
implemented
* more efficiently than using fls() and fls64()
@@ -85,7 +79,7 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
#define ilog2(n) \
(\
__builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \
- (n) < 1 ? ilog2_NaN() : \
+ (n) < 1 ? 0 : \
(n) & (1ULL << 63) ? 63 : \
(n) & (1ULL << 62) ? 62 : \
(n) & (1ULL << 61) ? 61 : \
@@ -149,9 +143,7 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
(n) & (1ULL << 3) ? 3 : \
(n) & (1ULL << 2) ? 2 : \
(n) & (1ULL << 1) ? 1 : \
- (n) & (1ULL << 0) ? 0 : \
- ilog2_NaN() \
-) : \
+ 0) :\
(sizeof(n) <= 4) ? \
__ilog2_u32(n) :\
__ilog2_u64(n) \
@@ -194,7 +186,6 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
* @n: parameter
*
* The first few values calculated by this routine:
- * ob2(0) = 0
* ob2(1) = 0
* ob2(2) = 1
* ob2(3) = 2
>>>
>>> Reviving this thread as gcc 7 has now hit Fedora rawhide and has this
>>> same issue. I pulled in the above patch from Will as a temporary work
>>> around for building. It didn't look like there was consensus on a
>>> permanent solution though from the thread.
>>>
>>
>> I still think order_base_2() is broken, since it may invoke
>> roundup_pow_of_two() with an input value that is documented as
>> producing undefined output. I would argue that the below is the
>> correct fix.
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/log2.h b/include/linux/log2.h
>> index fd7ff3d91e6a..46523731bec0 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/log2.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/log2.h
>> @@ -203,6 +203,18 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
>> * ... and so on.
>> */
>>
>> -#define order_base_2(n) ilog2(roundup_pow_of_two(n))
>> +static inline __attribute__((__const__))
>> +unsigned long __order_base_2(unsigned long n)
>> +{
>> + return n ? 1UL << fls_long(n - 1) : 1;
>> +}
>> +
>> +#define order_base_2(n)\
>> +( \
>> + __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \
>> + ((n) < 2) ? (n) : \
>> + ilog2((n) - 1) + 1) : \
>> + ilog2(__order_base_2(n))\
>> + )
>>
>> #endif /* _LINUX_LOG2_H */
>>
>
> This fixes the problem although the comments should be updated
> as well.
This brings order_base_2() in line with the comments, so I am
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:04:54AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > +#define order_base_2(n)\ > > +( \ > > + __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \ > > + ((n) < 2) ? (n) : \ > > + ilog2((n) - 1) + 1) : \ > > + __order_base_2(n) \ > > + ) > > Does this work properly when n is a signed negative value? Do you see it returning a complex number?
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
On 02/01/2017 09:36 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 1 February 2017 at 16:58, Laura Abbott wrote:
>> On 10/19/2016 09:22 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:01:33AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
> On 2016.10.19 at 08:55 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> Well, in the meantime we apparently have to live with it. Unless Will
>> is using some unreleased gcc version that nobody else is using and we
>> can just ignore it?
>
> Yes, he is using gcc-7 that is unreleased. (It will be released April
> next year.)
Ahh, self-built? So it's not part of some experimental ARM distro
setup and this will be annoying lots of people?
>>>
>>> Our friendly compiler guys built it, but it's just a snapshot of trunk,
>>> so it's all heading towards GCC 7.0. AFAIU, the problematic optimisation
>>> is also a mid-end pass, so it would affect other architectures too.
>>>
If so, still think that we could just get rid of the ilog2_NaN()
thing as it's not _that_ important, but it's certainly not very
high-priority. Will can do it in his tree too for testing, and it can
remind people to get the gcc problem fixed.
>>>
>>> I'm carrying the diff below, which fixes arm64 defconfig, but I'm worried
>>> that we might be relying on this trick elsewhere. The arm __bad_cmpxchg
>>> function, for example.
>>>
>>> Will
>>>
>>> --->8
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/log2.h b/include/linux/log2.h
>>> index fd7ff3d91e6a..9cf5ad69065d 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/log2.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/log2.h
>>> @@ -16,12 +16,6 @@
>>> #include
>>>
>>> /*
>>> - * deal with unrepresentable constant logarithms
>>> - */
>>> -extern __attribute__((const, noreturn))
>>> -int ilog2_NaN(void);
>>> -
>>> -/*
>>> * non-constant log of base 2 calculators
>>> * - the arch may override these in asm/bitops.h if they can be implemented
>>> * more efficiently than using fls() and fls64()
>>> @@ -85,7 +79,7 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
>>> #define ilog2(n) \
>>> (\
>>> __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \
>>> - (n) < 1 ? ilog2_NaN() : \
>>> + (n) < 1 ? 0 : \
>>> (n) & (1ULL << 63) ? 63 : \
>>> (n) & (1ULL << 62) ? 62 : \
>>> (n) & (1ULL << 61) ? 61 : \
>>> @@ -149,9 +143,7 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
>>> (n) & (1ULL << 3) ? 3 : \
>>> (n) & (1ULL << 2) ? 2 : \
>>> (n) & (1ULL << 1) ? 1 : \
>>> - (n) & (1ULL << 0) ? 0 : \
>>> - ilog2_NaN() \
>>> -) : \
>>> + 0) :\
>>> (sizeof(n) <= 4) ? \
>>> __ilog2_u32(n) :\
>>> __ilog2_u64(n) \
>>> @@ -194,7 +186,6 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
>>> * @n: parameter
>>> *
>>> * The first few values calculated by this routine:
>>> - * ob2(0) = 0
>>> * ob2(1) = 0
>>> * ob2(2) = 1
>>> * ob2(3) = 2
>>>
>>
>> Reviving this thread as gcc 7 has now hit Fedora rawhide and has this
>> same issue. I pulled in the above patch from Will as a temporary work
>> around for building. It didn't look like there was consensus on a
>> permanent solution though from the thread.
>>
>
> I still think order_base_2() is broken, since it may invoke
> roundup_pow_of_two() with an input value that is documented as
> producing undefined output. I would argue that the below is the
> correct fix.
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/log2.h b/include/linux/log2.h
> index fd7ff3d91e6a..46523731bec0 100644
> --- a/include/linux/log2.h
> +++ b/include/linux/log2.h
> @@ -203,6 +203,18 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
> * ... and so on.
> */
>
> -#define order_base_2(n) ilog2(roundup_pow_of_two(n))
> +static inline __attribute__((__const__))
> +unsigned long __order_base_2(unsigned long n)
> +{
> + return n ? 1UL << fls_long(n - 1) : 1;
> +}
> +
> +#define order_base_2(n)\
> +( \
> + __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \
> + ((n) < 2) ? (n) : \
> + ilog2((n) - 1) + 1) : \
> + ilog2(__order_base_2(n))\
> + )
>
> #endif /* _LINUX_LOG2_H */
>
This fixes the problem although the comments should be updated
as well. Is it worth fixing this for ilog2 as well just to avoid
the link nonsense there as well?
Thanks,
Laura
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
On 1 February 2017 at 20:34, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-02-01 at 19:53 +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 1 February 2017 at 19:49, Joe Perches wrote:
> []
>> > Or maybe add a BUILD_BUG_ON something like:
>> >
>> > #define order_base_2(n) \
>> > ({ \
>> > typeof(n) _n = n; \
>> > BUILD_BUG_ON(__builtin_constant_p(_n) && _n < 0); \
>> > __builtin_constant_p(_n) ? (_n < 2 ? _n : ilog2((_n) - 1) + 1)) \
>> > : __order_base_2(_n); \
>> > })
>> >
>>
>> This would interfere with the ability to use order_base_2() in
>> initializers for global variables.
>
> There aren't any as far as I can tell and would using
> order_base_2() for a global initializer make sense?
>
Why wouldn't it make sense?
In any case, we could also solve this by doing this instead
#define order_base_2(n)\
( \
__builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \
((n) == 0 || (n) == 1) ? 0 :\
ilog2((n) - 1) + 1) : \
__order_base_2(n) \
)
which will emit the usual unresolveable __ilog2_NaN reference when
constants < 0 are passed to order_base_2()
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
On Wed, 2017-02-01 at 19:53 +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 1 February 2017 at 19:49, Joe Perches wrote:
[]
> > Or maybe add a BUILD_BUG_ON something like:
> >
> > #define order_base_2(n) \
> > ({ \
> > typeof(n) _n = n; \
> > BUILD_BUG_ON(__builtin_constant_p(_n) && _n < 0); \
> > __builtin_constant_p(_n) ? (_n < 2 ? _n : ilog2((_n) - 1) + 1)) \
> > : __order_base_2(_n); \
> > })
> >
>
> This would interfere with the ability to use order_base_2() in
> initializers for global variables.
There aren't any as far as I can tell and would using
order_base_2() for a global initializer make sense?
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
On 1 February 2017 at 19:49, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-02-01 at 19:31 +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 1 February 2017 at 19:04, Joe Perches wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2017-02-01 at 18:19 +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> > > On 1 February 2017 at 17:36, Ard Biesheuvel
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > I still think order_base_2() is broken, since it may invoke
>> > > > roundup_pow_of_two() with an input value that is documented as
>> > > > producing undefined output. I would argue that the below is the
>> > > > correct fix.
>> > > >
>> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/log2.h b/include/linux/log2.h
>> > > > index fd7ff3d91e6a..46523731bec0 100644
>> > > > --- a/include/linux/log2.h
>> > > > +++ b/include/linux/log2.h
>> > > > @@ -203,6 +203,18 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned
>> > > > long n)
>> > > > * ... and so on.
>> > > > */
>> > > >
>> > > > -#define order_base_2(n) ilog2(roundup_pow_of_two(n))
>> > > > +static inline __attribute__((__const__))
>> > > > +unsigned long __order_base_2(unsigned long n)
>> > > > +{
>> > > > + return n ? 1UL << fls_long(n - 1) : 1;
>> > > > +}
>> > > > +
>> > > > +#define order_base_2(n)\
>> > > > +( \
>> > > > + __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \
>> > > > + ((n) < 2) ? (n) : \
>> > > > + ilog2((n) - 1) + 1) : \
>> > > > + ilog2(__order_base_2(n))\
>> > > > + )
>> > > >
>> > > > #endif /* _LINUX_LOG2_H */
>> > >
>> > > Actually, there is a still a redundant shift/fls() in there, this is
>> > > even simpler:
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/include/linux/log2.h b/include/linux/log2.h
>> > > index fd7ff3d91e6a..4741534bd7af 100644
>> > > --- a/include/linux/log2.h
>> > > +++ b/include/linux/log2.h
>> > > @@ -203,6 +203,18 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long
>> > > n)
>> > > * ... and so on.
>> > > */
>> > >
>> > > -#define order_base_2(n) ilog2(roundup_pow_of_two(n))
>> > > +static inline __attribute__((__const__))
>> >
>> > commonly __attribute_const__
>> >
>>
>> ... except in , which probably predates that.
>>
>> > > +unsigned long __order_base_2(unsigned long n)
>> > > +{
>> > > + return n > 1 ? ilog2(n - 1) + 1 : 0;
>> > > +}
>> > > +
>> > > +#define order_base_2(n)\
>> > > +( \
>> > > + __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \
>> > > + ((n) < 2) ? (n) : \
>> > > + ilog2((n) - 1) + 1) : \
>> > > + __order_base_2(n) \
>> > > + )
>> >
>> > Does this work properly when n is a signed negative value?
>> >
>>
>> No, but order_base_2() is explicitly only defined for inputs [0, ->),
>
> where?
>
The comment describes it as follows
/**
* order_base_2 - calculate the (rounded up) base 2 order of the argument
* @n: parameter
*
* The first few values calculated by this routine:
* ob2(0) = 0
* ob2(1) = 0
* ob2(2) = 1
* ob2(3) = 2
* ob2(4) = 2
* ob2(5) = 3
* ... and so on.
*/
i.e., it defines the output for inputs 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..., and not
for negative inputs, hence undefined.
>> so its behavior for negative inputs is best left undefined.
>
> Or maybe add a BUILD_BUG_ON something like:
>
> #define order_base_2(n) \
> ({ \
> typeof(n) _n = n; \
> BUILD_BUG_ON(__builtin_constant_p(_n) && _n < 0); \
> __builtin_constant_p(_n) ? (_n < 2 ? _n : ilog2((_n) - 1) + 1)) \
> : __order_base_2(_n); \
> })
>
This would interfere with the ability to use order_base_2() in
initializers for global variables.
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
On Wed, 2017-02-01 at 19:31 +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 1 February 2017 at 19:04, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-02-01 at 18:19 +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > On 1 February 2017 at 17:36, Ard Biesheuvel
> > > wrote:
> > > > I still think order_base_2() is broken, since it may invoke
> > > > roundup_pow_of_two() with an input value that is documented as
> > > > producing undefined output. I would argue that the below is the
> > > > correct fix.
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/log2.h b/include/linux/log2.h
> > > > index fd7ff3d91e6a..46523731bec0 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/log2.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/log2.h
> > > > @@ -203,6 +203,18 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long
> > > > n)
> > > > * ... and so on.
> > > > */
> > > >
> > > > -#define order_base_2(n) ilog2(roundup_pow_of_two(n))
> > > > +static inline __attribute__((__const__))
> > > > +unsigned long __order_base_2(unsigned long n)
> > > > +{
> > > > + return n ? 1UL << fls_long(n - 1) : 1;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +#define order_base_2(n)\
> > > > +( \
> > > > + __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \
> > > > + ((n) < 2) ? (n) : \
> > > > + ilog2((n) - 1) + 1) : \
> > > > + ilog2(__order_base_2(n))\
> > > > + )
> > > >
> > > > #endif /* _LINUX_LOG2_H */
> > >
> > > Actually, there is a still a redundant shift/fls() in there, this is
> > > even simpler:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/log2.h b/include/linux/log2.h
> > > index fd7ff3d91e6a..4741534bd7af 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/log2.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/log2.h
> > > @@ -203,6 +203,18 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
> > > * ... and so on.
> > > */
> > >
> > > -#define order_base_2(n) ilog2(roundup_pow_of_two(n))
> > > +static inline __attribute__((__const__))
> >
> > commonly __attribute_const__
> >
>
> ... except in , which probably predates that.
>
> > > +unsigned long __order_base_2(unsigned long n)
> > > +{
> > > + return n > 1 ? ilog2(n - 1) + 1 : 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +#define order_base_2(n)\
> > > +( \
> > > + __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \
> > > + ((n) < 2) ? (n) : \
> > > + ilog2((n) - 1) + 1) : \
> > > + __order_base_2(n) \
> > > + )
> >
> > Does this work properly when n is a signed negative value?
> >
>
> No, but order_base_2() is explicitly only defined for inputs [0, ->),
where?
> so its behavior for negative inputs is best left undefined.
Or maybe add a BUILD_BUG_ON something like:
#define order_base_2(n) \
({ \
typeof(n) _n = n; \
BUILD_BUG_ON(__builtin_constant_p(_n) && _n < 0); \
__builtin_constant_p(_n) ? (_n < 2 ? _n : ilog2((_n) - 1) + 1)) \
: __order_base_2(_n); \
})
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
On 1 February 2017 at 19:04, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-02-01 at 18:19 +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 1 February 2017 at 17:36, Ard Biesheuvel
>> wrote:
>> > I still think order_base_2() is broken, since it may invoke
>> > roundup_pow_of_two() with an input value that is documented as
>> > producing undefined output. I would argue that the below is the
>> > correct fix.
>> >
>> > diff --git a/include/linux/log2.h b/include/linux/log2.h
>> > index fd7ff3d91e6a..46523731bec0 100644
>> > --- a/include/linux/log2.h
>> > +++ b/include/linux/log2.h
>> > @@ -203,6 +203,18 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
>> > * ... and so on.
>> > */
>> >
>> > -#define order_base_2(n) ilog2(roundup_pow_of_two(n))
>> > +static inline __attribute__((__const__))
>> > +unsigned long __order_base_2(unsigned long n)
>> > +{
>> > + return n ? 1UL << fls_long(n - 1) : 1;
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > +#define order_base_2(n)\
>> > +( \
>> > + __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \
>> > + ((n) < 2) ? (n) : \
>> > + ilog2((n) - 1) + 1) : \
>> > + ilog2(__order_base_2(n))\
>> > + )
>> >
>> > #endif /* _LINUX_LOG2_H */
>>
>> Actually, there is a still a redundant shift/fls() in there, this is
>> even simpler:
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/log2.h b/include/linux/log2.h
>> index fd7ff3d91e6a..4741534bd7af 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/log2.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/log2.h
>> @@ -203,6 +203,18 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
>> * ... and so on.
>> */
>>
>> -#define order_base_2(n) ilog2(roundup_pow_of_two(n))
>> +static inline __attribute__((__const__))
>
> commonly __attribute_const__
>
... except in , which probably predates that.
>> +unsigned long __order_base_2(unsigned long n)
>> +{
>> + return n > 1 ? ilog2(n - 1) + 1 : 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +#define order_base_2(n)\
>> +( \
>> + __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \
>> + ((n) < 2) ? (n) : \
>> + ilog2((n) - 1) + 1) : \
>> + __order_base_2(n) \
>> + )
>
> Does this work properly when n is a signed negative value?
>
No, but order_base_2() is explicitly only defined for inputs [0, ->),
so its behavior for negative inputs is best left undefined.
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
On Wed, 2017-02-01 at 18:19 +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 1 February 2017 at 17:36, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > I still think order_base_2() is broken, since it may invoke
> > roundup_pow_of_two() with an input value that is documented as
> > producing undefined output. I would argue that the below is the
> > correct fix.
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/log2.h b/include/linux/log2.h
> > index fd7ff3d91e6a..46523731bec0 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/log2.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/log2.h
> > @@ -203,6 +203,18 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
> > * ... and so on.
> > */
> >
> > -#define order_base_2(n) ilog2(roundup_pow_of_two(n))
> > +static inline __attribute__((__const__))
> > +unsigned long __order_base_2(unsigned long n)
> > +{
> > + return n ? 1UL << fls_long(n - 1) : 1;
> > +}
> > +
> > +#define order_base_2(n)\
> > +( \
> > + __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \
> > + ((n) < 2) ? (n) : \
> > + ilog2((n) - 1) + 1) : \
> > + ilog2(__order_base_2(n))\
> > + )
> >
> > #endif /* _LINUX_LOG2_H */
>
> Actually, there is a still a redundant shift/fls() in there, this is
> even simpler:
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/log2.h b/include/linux/log2.h
> index fd7ff3d91e6a..4741534bd7af 100644
> --- a/include/linux/log2.h
> +++ b/include/linux/log2.h
> @@ -203,6 +203,18 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
> * ... and so on.
> */
>
> -#define order_base_2(n) ilog2(roundup_pow_of_two(n))
> +static inline __attribute__((__const__))
commonly __attribute_const__
> +unsigned long __order_base_2(unsigned long n)
> +{
> + return n > 1 ? ilog2(n - 1) + 1 : 0;
> +}
> +
> +#define order_base_2(n)\
> +( \
> + __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \
> + ((n) < 2) ? (n) : \
> + ilog2((n) - 1) + 1) : \
> + __order_base_2(n) \
> + )
Does this work properly when n is a signed negative value?
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
On 1 February 2017 at 17:36, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 1 February 2017 at 16:58, Laura Abbott wrote:
>> On 10/19/2016 09:22 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:01:33AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
> On 2016.10.19 at 08:55 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> Well, in the meantime we apparently have to live with it. Unless Will
>> is using some unreleased gcc version that nobody else is using and we
>> can just ignore it?
>
> Yes, he is using gcc-7 that is unreleased. (It will be released April
> next year.)
Ahh, self-built? So it's not part of some experimental ARM distro
setup and this will be annoying lots of people?
>>>
>>> Our friendly compiler guys built it, but it's just a snapshot of trunk,
>>> so it's all heading towards GCC 7.0. AFAIU, the problematic optimisation
>>> is also a mid-end pass, so it would affect other architectures too.
>>>
If so, still think that we could just get rid of the ilog2_NaN()
thing as it's not _that_ important, but it's certainly not very
high-priority. Will can do it in his tree too for testing, and it can
remind people to get the gcc problem fixed.
>>>
>>> I'm carrying the diff below, which fixes arm64 defconfig, but I'm worried
>>> that we might be relying on this trick elsewhere. The arm __bad_cmpxchg
>>> function, for example.
>>>
>>> Will
>>>
>>> --->8
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/log2.h b/include/linux/log2.h
>>> index fd7ff3d91e6a..9cf5ad69065d 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/log2.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/log2.h
>>> @@ -16,12 +16,6 @@
>>> #include
>>>
>>> /*
>>> - * deal with unrepresentable constant logarithms
>>> - */
>>> -extern __attribute__((const, noreturn))
>>> -int ilog2_NaN(void);
>>> -
>>> -/*
>>> * non-constant log of base 2 calculators
>>> * - the arch may override these in asm/bitops.h if they can be implemented
>>> * more efficiently than using fls() and fls64()
>>> @@ -85,7 +79,7 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
>>> #define ilog2(n) \
>>> (\
>>> __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \
>>> - (n) < 1 ? ilog2_NaN() : \
>>> + (n) < 1 ? 0 : \
>>> (n) & (1ULL << 63) ? 63 : \
>>> (n) & (1ULL << 62) ? 62 : \
>>> (n) & (1ULL << 61) ? 61 : \
>>> @@ -149,9 +143,7 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
>>> (n) & (1ULL << 3) ? 3 : \
>>> (n) & (1ULL << 2) ? 2 : \
>>> (n) & (1ULL << 1) ? 1 : \
>>> - (n) & (1ULL << 0) ? 0 : \
>>> - ilog2_NaN() \
>>> -) : \
>>> + 0) :\
>>> (sizeof(n) <= 4) ? \
>>> __ilog2_u32(n) :\
>>> __ilog2_u64(n) \
>>> @@ -194,7 +186,6 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
>>> * @n: parameter
>>> *
>>> * The first few values calculated by this routine:
>>> - * ob2(0) = 0
>>> * ob2(1) = 0
>>> * ob2(2) = 1
>>> * ob2(3) = 2
>>>
>>
>> Reviving this thread as gcc 7 has now hit Fedora rawhide and has this
>> same issue. I pulled in the above patch from Will as a temporary work
>> around for building. It didn't look like there was consensus on a
>> permanent solution though from the thread.
>>
>
> I still think order_base_2() is broken, since it may invoke
> roundup_pow_of_two() with an input value that is documented as
> producing undefined output. I would argue that the below is the
> correct fix.
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/log2.h b/include/linux/log2.h
> index fd7ff3d91e6a..46523731bec0 100644
> --- a/include/linux/log2.h
> +++ b/include/linux/log2.h
> @@ -203,6 +203,18 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
> * ... and so on.
> */
>
> -#define order_base_2(n) ilog2(roundup_pow_of_two(n))
> +static inline __attribute__((__const__))
> +unsigned long __order_base_2(unsigned long n)
> +{
> + return n ? 1UL << fls_long(n - 1) : 1;
> +}
> +
> +#define order_base_2(n)\
> +( \
> + __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \
> + ((n) < 2) ? (n) : \
> + ilog2((n) - 1) + 1) : \
> + ilog2(__order_base_2(n))\
> + )
>
> #endif /* _LINUX_LOG2_H */
Actually, there is a still a redundant shift/fls() in there, this is
even simpler:
diff --git a/include/linux/log2.h b/include/linux/log2.h
index fd7ff3d91e6a..4741534bd7af 100644
--- a/include/linux/log2.h
+++ b/include/linux/log2.h
@@ -203,6 +203,18 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
On 1 February 2017 at 16:58, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 10/19/2016 09:22 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:01:33AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
>>> wrote:
On 2016.10.19 at 08:55 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Well, in the meantime we apparently have to live with it. Unless Will
> is using some unreleased gcc version that nobody else is using and we
> can just ignore it?
Yes, he is using gcc-7 that is unreleased. (It will be released April
next year.)
>>>
>>> Ahh, self-built? So it's not part of some experimental ARM distro
>>> setup and this will be annoying lots of people?
>>
>> Our friendly compiler guys built it, but it's just a snapshot of trunk,
>> so it's all heading towards GCC 7.0. AFAIU, the problematic optimisation
>> is also a mid-end pass, so it would affect other architectures too.
>>
>>> If so, still think that we could just get rid of the ilog2_NaN()
>>> thing as it's not _that_ important, but it's certainly not very
>>> high-priority. Will can do it in his tree too for testing, and it can
>>> remind people to get the gcc problem fixed.
>>
>> I'm carrying the diff below, which fixes arm64 defconfig, but I'm worried
>> that we might be relying on this trick elsewhere. The arm __bad_cmpxchg
>> function, for example.
>>
>> Will
>>
>> --->8
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/log2.h b/include/linux/log2.h
>> index fd7ff3d91e6a..9cf5ad69065d 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/log2.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/log2.h
>> @@ -16,12 +16,6 @@
>> #include
>>
>> /*
>> - * deal with unrepresentable constant logarithms
>> - */
>> -extern __attribute__((const, noreturn))
>> -int ilog2_NaN(void);
>> -
>> -/*
>> * non-constant log of base 2 calculators
>> * - the arch may override these in asm/bitops.h if they can be implemented
>> * more efficiently than using fls() and fls64()
>> @@ -85,7 +79,7 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
>> #define ilog2(n) \
>> (\
>> __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \
>> - (n) < 1 ? ilog2_NaN() : \
>> + (n) < 1 ? 0 : \
>> (n) & (1ULL << 63) ? 63 : \
>> (n) & (1ULL << 62) ? 62 : \
>> (n) & (1ULL << 61) ? 61 : \
>> @@ -149,9 +143,7 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
>> (n) & (1ULL << 3) ? 3 : \
>> (n) & (1ULL << 2) ? 2 : \
>> (n) & (1ULL << 1) ? 1 : \
>> - (n) & (1ULL << 0) ? 0 : \
>> - ilog2_NaN() \
>> -) : \
>> + 0) :\
>> (sizeof(n) <= 4) ? \
>> __ilog2_u32(n) :\
>> __ilog2_u64(n) \
>> @@ -194,7 +186,6 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
>> * @n: parameter
>> *
>> * The first few values calculated by this routine:
>> - * ob2(0) = 0
>> * ob2(1) = 0
>> * ob2(2) = 1
>> * ob2(3) = 2
>>
>
> Reviving this thread as gcc 7 has now hit Fedora rawhide and has this
> same issue. I pulled in the above patch from Will as a temporary work
> around for building. It didn't look like there was consensus on a
> permanent solution though from the thread.
>
I still think order_base_2() is broken, since it may invoke
roundup_pow_of_two() with an input value that is documented as
producing undefined output. I would argue that the below is the
correct fix.
diff --git a/include/linux/log2.h b/include/linux/log2.h
index fd7ff3d91e6a..46523731bec0 100644
--- a/include/linux/log2.h
+++ b/include/linux/log2.h
@@ -203,6 +203,18 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
* ... and so on.
*/
-#define order_base_2(n) ilog2(roundup_pow_of_two(n))
+static inline __attribute__((__const__))
+unsigned long __order_base_2(unsigned long n)
+{
+ return n ? 1UL << fls_long(n - 1) : 1;
+}
+
+#define order_base_2(n)\
+( \
+ __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \
+ ((n) < 2) ? (n) : \
+ ilog2((n) - 1) + 1) : \
+ ilog2(__order_base_2(n))\
+ )
#endif /* _LINUX_LOG2_H */
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
On 10/19/2016 09:22 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:01:33AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf >> wrote: >>> On 2016.10.19 at 08:55 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: Well, in the meantime we apparently have to live with it. Unless Will is using some unreleased gcc version that nobody else is using and we can just ignore it? >>> >>> Yes, he is using gcc-7 that is unreleased. (It will be released April >>> next year.) >> >> Ahh, self-built? So it's not part of some experimental ARM distro >> setup and this will be annoying lots of people? > > Our friendly compiler guys built it, but it's just a snapshot of trunk, > so it's all heading towards GCC 7.0. AFAIU, the problematic optimisation > is also a mid-end pass, so it would affect other architectures too. > >> If so, still think that we could just get rid of the ilog2_NaN() >> thing as it's not _that_ important, but it's certainly not very >> high-priority. Will can do it in his tree too for testing, and it can >> remind people to get the gcc problem fixed. > > I'm carrying the diff below, which fixes arm64 defconfig, but I'm worried > that we might be relying on this trick elsewhere. The arm __bad_cmpxchg > function, for example. > > Will > > --->8 > > diff --git a/include/linux/log2.h b/include/linux/log2.h > index fd7ff3d91e6a..9cf5ad69065d 100644 > --- a/include/linux/log2.h > +++ b/include/linux/log2.h > @@ -16,12 +16,6 @@ > #include > > /* > - * deal with unrepresentable constant logarithms > - */ > -extern __attribute__((const, noreturn)) > -int ilog2_NaN(void); > - > -/* > * non-constant log of base 2 calculators > * - the arch may override these in asm/bitops.h if they can be implemented > * more efficiently than using fls() and fls64() > @@ -85,7 +79,7 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n) > #define ilog2(n) \ > (\ > __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \ > - (n) < 1 ? ilog2_NaN() : \ > + (n) < 1 ? 0 : \ > (n) & (1ULL << 63) ? 63 : \ > (n) & (1ULL << 62) ? 62 : \ > (n) & (1ULL << 61) ? 61 : \ > @@ -149,9 +143,7 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n) > (n) & (1ULL << 3) ? 3 : \ > (n) & (1ULL << 2) ? 2 : \ > (n) & (1ULL << 1) ? 1 : \ > - (n) & (1ULL << 0) ? 0 : \ > - ilog2_NaN() \ > -) : \ > + 0) :\ > (sizeof(n) <= 4) ? \ > __ilog2_u32(n) :\ > __ilog2_u64(n) \ > @@ -194,7 +186,6 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n) > * @n: parameter > * > * The first few values calculated by this routine: > - * ob2(0) = 0 > * ob2(1) = 0 > * ob2(2) = 1 > * ob2(3) = 2 > Reviving this thread as gcc 7 has now hit Fedora rawhide and has this same issue. I pulled in the above patch from Will as a temporary work around for building. It didn't look like there was consensus on a permanent solution though from the thread. Thanks, Laura
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:01:33AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf > wrote: > > On 2016.10.19 at 08:55 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> > >> Well, in the meantime we apparently have to live with it. Unless Will > >> is using some unreleased gcc version that nobody else is using and we > >> can just ignore it? > > > > Yes, he is using gcc-7 that is unreleased. (It will be released April > > next year.) > > Ahh, self-built? So it's not part of some experimental ARM distro > setup and this will be annoying lots of people? Our friendly compiler guys built it, but it's just a snapshot of trunk, so it's all heading towards GCC 7.0. AFAIU, the problematic optimisation is also a mid-end pass, so it would affect other architectures too. > If so, still think that we could just get rid of the ilog2_NaN() > thing as it's not _that_ important, but it's certainly not very > high-priority. Will can do it in his tree too for testing, and it can > remind people to get the gcc problem fixed. I'm carrying the diff below, which fixes arm64 defconfig, but I'm worried that we might be relying on this trick elsewhere. The arm __bad_cmpxchg function, for example. Will --->8 diff --git a/include/linux/log2.h b/include/linux/log2.h index fd7ff3d91e6a..9cf5ad69065d 100644 --- a/include/linux/log2.h +++ b/include/linux/log2.h @@ -16,12 +16,6 @@ #include /* - * deal with unrepresentable constant logarithms - */ -extern __attribute__((const, noreturn)) -int ilog2_NaN(void); - -/* * non-constant log of base 2 calculators * - the arch may override these in asm/bitops.h if they can be implemented * more efficiently than using fls() and fls64() @@ -85,7 +79,7 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n) #define ilog2(n) \ ( \ __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \ - (n) < 1 ? ilog2_NaN() : \ + (n) < 1 ? 0 : \ (n) & (1ULL << 63) ? 63 : \ (n) & (1ULL << 62) ? 62 : \ (n) & (1ULL << 61) ? 61 : \ @@ -149,9 +143,7 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n) (n) & (1ULL << 3) ? 3 : \ (n) & (1ULL << 2) ? 2 : \ (n) & (1ULL << 1) ? 1 : \ - (n) & (1ULL << 0) ? 0 : \ - ilog2_NaN() \ - ) : \ + 0) :\ (sizeof(n) <= 4) ? \ __ilog2_u32(n) :\ __ilog2_u64(n) \ @@ -194,7 +186,6 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n) * @n: parameter * * The first few values calculated by this routine: - * ob2(0) = 0 * ob2(1) = 0 * ob2(2) = 1 * ob2(3) = 2
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2016.10.19 at 08:55 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> Well, in the meantime we apparently have to live with it. Unless Will >> is using some unreleased gcc version that nobody else is using and we >> can just ignore it? > > Yes, he is using gcc-7 that is unreleased. (It will be released April > next year.) Ahh, self-built? So it's not part of some experimental ARM distro setup and this will be annoying lots of people? If so, still think that we could just get rid of the ilog2_NaN() thing as it's not _that_ important, but it's certainly not very high-priority. Will can do it in his tree too for testing, and it can remind people to get the gcc problem fixed. Linus
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
On 2016.10.19 at 08:55 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf > wrote: > > > > This is a gcc bug, see: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72785 > > Well, in the meantime we apparently have to live with it. Unless Will > is using some unreleased gcc version that nobody else is using and we > can just ignore it? Yes, he is using gcc-7 that is unreleased. (It will be released April next year.) -- Markus
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
On 19 October 2016 at 16:56, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2016.10.19 at 08:55 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf >> wrote: >> > >> > This is a gcc bug, see: >> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72785 >> >> Well, in the meantime we apparently have to live with it. Unless Will >> is using some unreleased gcc version that nobody else is using and we >> can just ignore it? > > Yes, he is using gcc-7 that is unreleased. (It will be released April > next year.) > order_base_2() is still broken though, given that it is documented as * The first few values calculated by this routine: * ob2(0) = 0 * ob2(1) = 0 * ob2(2) = 1 * ob2(3) = 2 * ob2(4) = 2 * ob2(5) = 3 whereas order_base_2(0) actually ends up invoking roundup_pow_of_two(0), which is documented as being undefined.
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 02:35:00PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi Ard, > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:43:19PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > If order_base_2() is not defined for input 0, it should BUG() in that > > case, and the associated __builtin_unreachable() should prevent the > > special version from being emitted. If order_base_2() is defined for input > > 0, it should not invoke ilog2() with that argument, and the problem should > > go away as well. > > I don't necessarily think it should BUG() if it's not defined for input > 0; In any case, Linus will have a rant about that: Linus has already been concerned about the abuse of BUG(). BUG() should not be used as an assert() replacement, but should be used where we have absolutely no other option than to crash the kernel, because (eg) continuing would result in the users' data being corrupted. So no, BUG() is not the answer here. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net.
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > This is a gcc bug, see: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72785 Well, in the meantime we apparently have to live with it. Unless Will is using some unreleased gcc version that nobody else is using and we can just ignore it? I don't think the link-time check is so important that we need to notice it, and the "ilog2_NaN()" could just be replaced with "0". Linus
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 4:27:51 PM CEST Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >
> > Why not turn it into a runtime warning in this driver?
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c
> > b/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c
> > index cecb0fdfaef6..711d1d9842cc 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c
> > @@ -349,8 +349,10 @@ static int armada_3700_add_composite_clk(const struct
> > clk_periph_data *data,
> > rate->reg = reg + (u64)rate->reg;
> > for (clkt = rate->table; clkt->div; clkt++)
> > table_size++;
> > - rate->width = order_base_2(table_size);
> > - rate->lock = lock;
> > + if (!WARN_ON(table_size == 0)) {
> > + rate->width = order_base_2(table_size);
> > + rate->lock = lock;
> > + }
> > }
> > }
> >
>
> I guess Will is not looking for a way to fix the driver, but for a way
> to eliminate this issue entirely going forward.
>
> In general, I think the issue where constant folding results in
> ilog2() or other similar functions being called with invalid build
> time constant parameter values is simply something we have to deal
> with.
>
> In this case, it is in fact order_base_2() that deviates from its
> documented behavior (as Will points out), and fixing /that/ should
> make this particular issue go away afaict.
Ah, right. I also noticed that order_base_2() is defined as
log2(1 << (log2(n-1)+1)), which seems a bit redundant.
Maybe we can simplify it to something like
#define order_base_2(n) ((n) <= 1) ? 0 : log2((n) - 1) + 1)
Arnd
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
On 2016.10.17 at 19:38 +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm seeing an arm64 build failure with -rc1 and GCC trunk, although I > believe that the new compiler behaviour at the heart of the problem > has the potential to affect other architectures and other pieces of > kernel code relying on dead-code elimination to remove deliberately > undefined functions. > > The failure looks like: > > | drivers/built-in.o: In function `armada_3700_add_composite_clk': > | > | linux/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c:351: > | undefined reference to `ilog2_NaN' > | > | linux/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c:351:(.text+0xc72e0): > | relocation truncated to fit: R_AARCH64_CALL26 against undefined symbol > | `ilog2_NaN' > | > | make: *** [vmlinux] Error 1 > This is a gcc bug, see: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72785 -- Markus
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
On 19 October 2016 at 16:11, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 4:01:58 PM CEST Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 19 October 2016 at 15:59, Ard Biesheuvel
>> wrote:
>> > On 19 October 2016 at 14:35, Will Deacon wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:43:19PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> >>> On 17 October 2016 at 19:38, Will Deacon wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes, and that would be perfectly legal from a correctness point of
>> > view, and would likely help performance as well. By using
>> > __builtin_constant_p(), you are choosing to perform a build time
>> > evaluation of an expression that would ordinarily be evaluated only at
>> > runtime. This implies that you have to address undefined behavior at
>> > build time rather than at runtime as well.
>> >
>> >>> If order_base_2() is not defined for input 0, it should BUG() in that
>> >>> case, and the associated __builtin_unreachable() should prevent the
>> >>> special version from being emitted. If order_base_2() is defined for
>> >>> input
>> >>> 0, it should not invoke ilog2() with that argument, and the problem
>> >>> should
>> >>> go away as well.
>> >>
>> >> I don't necessarily think it should BUG() if it's not defined for input
>> >> 0; things like __ffs don't do that and we'd be introducing conditional
>> >> checks for cases that should not happen. The comment above order_base_2
>> >> does suggest that ob2(0) should return 0, but it can actually end up
>> >> invoking ilog2(-1), which is obviously wrong.
>> >>
>> >> I could update the comment, but that doesn't fix the build issue.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Fixing roundup_pow_of_two() [which is arguably incorrect]
>>
>> I just spotted the comment that says it is undefined. But that means
>> it could legally return 1 for input 0, i suppose
>
> I think having the link error in roundup_pow_of_two() is safer than
> returning 1.
>
> Why not turn it into a runtime warning in this driver?
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c
> b/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c
> index cecb0fdfaef6..711d1d9842cc 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c
> @@ -349,8 +349,10 @@ static int armada_3700_add_composite_clk(const struct
> clk_periph_data *data,
> rate->reg = reg + (u64)rate->reg;
> for (clkt = rate->table; clkt->div; clkt++)
> table_size++;
> - rate->width = order_base_2(table_size);
> - rate->lock = lock;
> + if (!WARN_ON(table_size == 0)) {
> + rate->width = order_base_2(table_size);
> + rate->lock = lock;
> + }
> }
> }
>
I guess Will is not looking for a way to fix the driver, but for a way
to eliminate this issue entirely going forward.
In general, I think the issue where constant folding results in
ilog2() or other similar functions being called with invalid build
time constant parameter values is simply something we have to deal
with.
In this case, it is in fact order_base_2() that deviates from its
documented behavior (as Will points out), and fixing /that/ should
make this particular issue go away afaict.
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
Hi Arnd,
On mer., oct. 19 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 4:01:58 PM CEST Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 19 October 2016 at 15:59, Ard Biesheuvel
>> wrote:
>> > On 19 October 2016 at 14:35, Will Deacon wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:43:19PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> >>> On 17 October 2016 at 19:38, Will Deacon wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes, and that would be perfectly legal from a correctness point of
>> > view, and would likely help performance as well. By using
>> > __builtin_constant_p(), you are choosing to perform a build time
>> > evaluation of an expression that would ordinarily be evaluated only at
>> > runtime. This implies that you have to address undefined behavior at
>> > build time rather than at runtime as well.
>> >
>> >>> If order_base_2() is not defined for input 0, it should BUG() in that
>> >>> case, and the associated __builtin_unreachable() should prevent the
>> >>> special version from being emitted. If order_base_2() is defined for
>> >>> input
>> >>> 0, it should not invoke ilog2() with that argument, and the problem
>> >>> should
>> >>> go away as well.
>> >>
>> >> I don't necessarily think it should BUG() if it's not defined for input
>> >> 0; things like __ffs don't do that and we'd be introducing conditional
>> >> checks for cases that should not happen. The comment above order_base_2
>> >> does suggest that ob2(0) should return 0, but it can actually end up
>> >> invoking ilog2(-1), which is obviously wrong.
>> >>
>> >> I could update the comment, but that doesn't fix the build issue.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Fixing roundup_pow_of_two() [which is arguably incorrect]
>>
>> I just spotted the comment that says it is undefined. But that means
>> it could legally return 1 for input 0, i suppose
>
> I think having the link error in roundup_pow_of_two() is safer than
> returning 1.
>
> Why not turn it into a runtime warning in this driver?
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c
> b/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c
> index cecb0fdfaef6..711d1d9842cc 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c
> @@ -349,8 +349,10 @@ static int armada_3700_add_composite_clk(const struct
> clk_periph_data *data,
> rate->reg = reg + (u64)rate->reg;
> for (clkt = rate->table; clkt->div; clkt++)
> table_size++;
> - rate->width = order_base_2(table_size);
> - rate->lock = lock;
> + if (!WARN_ON(table_size == 0)) {
> + rate->width = order_base_2(table_size);
> + rate->lock = lock;
> + }
With the way the data are constructed in the driver I don't see how the
table_size can be 0.
However I understand it is more something for the compiler.
In this case it is better to nullify the rate_hw as having width=0 will
lead to trouble in the clk_divider operations
If it is the needed solution for this build error I can submit this kind
of patch:
diff --git a/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c
b/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c
index 45905fc0d75b..dbc49359406d 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c
@@ -345,11 +345,16 @@ static int armada_3700_add_composite_clk(const struct
clk_periph_data *data,
const struct clk_div_table *clkt;
int table_size = 0;
- rate->reg = reg + (u64)rate->reg;
for (clkt = rate->table; clkt->div; clkt++)
table_size++;
- rate->width = order_base_2(table_size);
- rate->lock = lock;
+ if (!WARN_ON(table_size == 0)) {
+ rate->reg = reg + (u64)rate->reg;
+ rate->width = order_base_2(table_size);
+ rate->lock = lock;
+ } else {
+ rate_hw = NULL;
+ rate_ops = NULL;
+ }
}
}
Gregory
> }
> }
>
>
>
> Arnd
>
> ___
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
--
Gregory Clement, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 4:01:58 PM CEST Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 19 October 2016 at 15:59, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On 19 October 2016 at 14:35, Will Deacon wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:43:19PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >>> On 17 October 2016 at 19:38, Will Deacon wrote:
> >
> > Yes, and that would be perfectly legal from a correctness point of
> > view, and would likely help performance as well. By using
> > __builtin_constant_p(), you are choosing to perform a build time
> > evaluation of an expression that would ordinarily be evaluated only at
> > runtime. This implies that you have to address undefined behavior at
> > build time rather than at runtime as well.
> >
> >>> If order_base_2() is not defined for input 0, it should BUG() in that
> >>> case, and the associated __builtin_unreachable() should prevent the
> >>> special version from being emitted. If order_base_2() is defined for input
> >>> 0, it should not invoke ilog2() with that argument, and the problem should
> >>> go away as well.
> >>
> >> I don't necessarily think it should BUG() if it's not defined for input
> >> 0; things like __ffs don't do that and we'd be introducing conditional
> >> checks for cases that should not happen. The comment above order_base_2
> >> does suggest that ob2(0) should return 0, but it can actually end up
> >> invoking ilog2(-1), which is obviously wrong.
> >>
> >> I could update the comment, but that doesn't fix the build issue.
> >>
> >
> > Fixing roundup_pow_of_two() [which is arguably incorrect]
>
> I just spotted the comment that says it is undefined. But that means
> it could legally return 1 for input 0, i suppose
I think having the link error in roundup_pow_of_two() is safer than
returning 1.
Why not turn it into a runtime warning in this driver?
diff --git a/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c
b/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c
index cecb0fdfaef6..711d1d9842cc 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c
@@ -349,8 +349,10 @@ static int armada_3700_add_composite_clk(const struct
clk_periph_data *data,
rate->reg = reg + (u64)rate->reg;
for (clkt = rate->table; clkt->div; clkt++)
table_size++;
- rate->width = order_base_2(table_size);
- rate->lock = lock;
+ if (!WARN_ON(table_size == 0)) {
+ rate->width = order_base_2(table_size);
+ rate->lock = lock;
+ }
}
}
Arnd
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
Hi Ard, On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:43:19PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 17 October 2016 at 19:38, Will Deacon wrote: > > I'm seeing an arm64 build failure with -rc1 and GCC trunk, although I > > believe that the new compiler behaviour at the heart of the problem > > has the potential to affect other architectures and other pieces of > > kernel code relying on dead-code elimination to remove deliberately > > undefined functions. > > > > The failure looks like: > > > > | drivers/built-in.o: In function `armada_3700_add_composite_clk': > > | > > | linux/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c:351: > > | undefined reference to `ilog2_NaN' > > | > > | linux/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c:351:(.text+0xc72e0): > > | relocation truncated to fit: R_AARCH64_CALL26 against undefined symbol > > | `ilog2_NaN' > > | > > | make: *** [vmlinux] Error 1 > > > > and if we look at the source for armada_3700_add_composite_clk, we see > > that this is caused by: > > > > int table_size = 0; > > > > rate->reg = reg + (u64)rate->reg; > > for (clkt = rate->table; clkt->div; clkt++) > > table_size++; > > rate->width = order_base_2(table_size); > > > > order_base_2 calls ilog2, which has the ilog2_NaN call: > > > > #define ilog2(n)\ > > ( \ > > __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \ > > (n) < 1 ? ilog2_NaN() : \ > > > > This is because we're in a curious case where GCC has emitted a > > special-cased version of armada_3700_add_composite_clk, with table_size > > effectively constant-folded as 0. Whilst we shouldn't see this in a > > non-buggy kernel (hence the deliberate call to the undefined function > > ilog2_NaN), it means that the final link fails because we have a > > ilog2_NaN in the code, with a runtime check on table_size. > > > > This is indeed an unintended side effect, but I would not call it > weird behaviour at all. The code in its current form does not handle > the case where it could end up passing 0 into order_base_2(), and we > simply need to handle that case. The reasons I think it's weird are: (1) The optimisation doesn't generate better code in this case -- optimising for the table_size == 0 case is uninformed, particularly as that *cannot* happen at runtime (GCC probably can't tell, due to things like container_of, but all the clock data is static). (2) __builtin_constant_p(n) could be interpreted by a developer as "this code will execute with a constant n at runtime". With this issue, GCC could (in theory) generate a specialisation for every possible value of a variable, and return __builtin_constant_p as true for all of them, which somewhat undermines the point of the builtin. > If order_base_2() is not defined for input 0, it should BUG() in that > case, and the associated __builtin_unreachable() should prevent the > special version from being emitted. If order_base_2() is defined for input > 0, it should not invoke ilog2() with that argument, and the problem should > go away as well. I don't necessarily think it should BUG() if it's not defined for input 0; things like __ffs don't do that and we'd be introducing conditional checks for cases that should not happen. The comment above order_base_2 does suggest that ob2(0) should return 0, but it can actually end up invoking ilog2(-1), which is obviously wrong. I could update the comment, but that doesn't fix the build issue. Will
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
On 19 October 2016 at 15:59, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 19 October 2016 at 14:35, Will Deacon wrote: >> Hi Ard, >> >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:43:19PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >>> On 17 October 2016 at 19:38, Will Deacon wrote: >>> > I'm seeing an arm64 build failure with -rc1 and GCC trunk, although I >>> > believe that the new compiler behaviour at the heart of the problem >>> > has the potential to affect other architectures and other pieces of >>> > kernel code relying on dead-code elimination to remove deliberately >>> > undefined functions. >>> > >>> > The failure looks like: >>> > >>> > | drivers/built-in.o: In function `armada_3700_add_composite_clk': >>> > | >>> > | linux/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c:351: >>> > | undefined reference to `ilog2_NaN' >>> > | >>> > | linux/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c:351:(.text+0xc72e0): >>> > | relocation truncated to fit: R_AARCH64_CALL26 against undefined symbol >>> > | `ilog2_NaN' >>> > | >>> > | make: *** [vmlinux] Error 1 >>> > >>> > and if we look at the source for armada_3700_add_composite_clk, we see >>> > that this is caused by: >>> > >>> > int table_size = 0; >>> > >>> > rate->reg = reg + (u64)rate->reg; >>> > for (clkt = rate->table; clkt->div; clkt++) >>> > table_size++; >>> > rate->width = order_base_2(table_size); >>> > >>> > order_base_2 calls ilog2, which has the ilog2_NaN call: >>> > >>> > #define ilog2(n)\ >>> > ( \ >>> > __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \ >>> > (n) < 1 ? ilog2_NaN() : \ >>> > >>> > This is because we're in a curious case where GCC has emitted a >>> > special-cased version of armada_3700_add_composite_clk, with table_size >>> > effectively constant-folded as 0. Whilst we shouldn't see this in a >>> > non-buggy kernel (hence the deliberate call to the undefined function >>> > ilog2_NaN), it means that the final link fails because we have a >>> > ilog2_NaN in the code, with a runtime check on table_size. >>> > >>> >>> This is indeed an unintended side effect, but I would not call it >>> weird behaviour at all. The code in its current form does not handle >>> the case where it could end up passing 0 into order_base_2(), and we >>> simply need to handle that case. >> >> The reasons I think it's weird are: >> >> (1) The optimisation doesn't generate better code in this case -- >> optimising for the table_size == 0 case is uninformed, particularly >> as that *cannot* happen at runtime (GCC probably can't tell, due >> to things like container_of, but all the clock data is static). >> > > AFAICT, the references to the static clock data are indirected via > of_device_get_match_data(), which means there is no way the compiler > can prove that table_size is always non-zero. > >> (2) __builtin_constant_p(n) could be interpreted by a developer as >> "this code will execute with a constant n at runtime". With this >> issue, GCC could (in theory) generate a specialisation for every >> possible value of a variable, and return __builtin_constant_p as >> true for all of them, which somewhat undermines the point of the >> builtin. >> > > Yes, and that would be perfectly legal from a correctness point of > view, and would likely help performance as well. By using > __builtin_constant_p(), you are choosing to perform a build time > evaluation of an expression that would ordinarily be evaluated only at > runtime. This implies that you have to address undefined behavior at > build time rather than at runtime as well. > >>> If order_base_2() is not defined for input 0, it should BUG() in that >>> case, and the associated __builtin_unreachable() should prevent the >>> special version from being emitted. If order_base_2() is defined for input >>> 0, it should not invoke ilog2() with that argument, and the problem should >>> go away as well. >> >> I don't necessarily think it should BUG() if it's not defined for input >> 0; things like __ffs don't do that and we'd be introducing conditional >> checks for cases that should not happen. The comment above order_base_2 >> does suggest that ob2(0) should return 0, but it can actually end up >> invoking ilog2(-1), which is obviously wrong. >> >> I could update the comment, but that doesn't fix the build issue. >> > > Fixing roundup_pow_of_two() [which is arguably incorrect] I just spotted the comment that says it is undefined. But that means it could legally return 1 for input 0, i suppose > would > probably fix the build issue as well, no? > > diff --git a/include/linux/log2.h b/include/linux/log2.h > index fd7ff3d91e6a..8a4be5e4223b 100644 > --- a/include/linux/log2.h > +++ b/include/linux/log2.h > @@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n) > #define roundup_pow_of_two(n) \ > (
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
On 19 October 2016 at 14:35, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi Ard, > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:43:19PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> On 17 October 2016 at 19:38, Will Deacon wrote: >> > I'm seeing an arm64 build failure with -rc1 and GCC trunk, although I >> > believe that the new compiler behaviour at the heart of the problem >> > has the potential to affect other architectures and other pieces of >> > kernel code relying on dead-code elimination to remove deliberately >> > undefined functions. >> > >> > The failure looks like: >> > >> > | drivers/built-in.o: In function `armada_3700_add_composite_clk': >> > | >> > | linux/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c:351: >> > | undefined reference to `ilog2_NaN' >> > | >> > | linux/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c:351:(.text+0xc72e0): >> > | relocation truncated to fit: R_AARCH64_CALL26 against undefined symbol >> > | `ilog2_NaN' >> > | >> > | make: *** [vmlinux] Error 1 >> > >> > and if we look at the source for armada_3700_add_composite_clk, we see >> > that this is caused by: >> > >> > int table_size = 0; >> > >> > rate->reg = reg + (u64)rate->reg; >> > for (clkt = rate->table; clkt->div; clkt++) >> > table_size++; >> > rate->width = order_base_2(table_size); >> > >> > order_base_2 calls ilog2, which has the ilog2_NaN call: >> > >> > #define ilog2(n)\ >> > ( \ >> > __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \ >> > (n) < 1 ? ilog2_NaN() : \ >> > >> > This is because we're in a curious case where GCC has emitted a >> > special-cased version of armada_3700_add_composite_clk, with table_size >> > effectively constant-folded as 0. Whilst we shouldn't see this in a >> > non-buggy kernel (hence the deliberate call to the undefined function >> > ilog2_NaN), it means that the final link fails because we have a >> > ilog2_NaN in the code, with a runtime check on table_size. >> > >> >> This is indeed an unintended side effect, but I would not call it >> weird behaviour at all. The code in its current form does not handle >> the case where it could end up passing 0 into order_base_2(), and we >> simply need to handle that case. > > The reasons I think it's weird are: > > (1) The optimisation doesn't generate better code in this case -- > optimising for the table_size == 0 case is uninformed, particularly > as that *cannot* happen at runtime (GCC probably can't tell, due > to things like container_of, but all the clock data is static). > AFAICT, the references to the static clock data are indirected via of_device_get_match_data(), which means there is no way the compiler can prove that table_size is always non-zero. > (2) __builtin_constant_p(n) could be interpreted by a developer as > "this code will execute with a constant n at runtime". With this > issue, GCC could (in theory) generate a specialisation for every > possible value of a variable, and return __builtin_constant_p as > true for all of them, which somewhat undermines the point of the > builtin. > Yes, and that would be perfectly legal from a correctness point of view, and would likely help performance as well. By using __builtin_constant_p(), you are choosing to perform a build time evaluation of an expression that would ordinarily be evaluated only at runtime. This implies that you have to address undefined behavior at build time rather than at runtime as well. >> If order_base_2() is not defined for input 0, it should BUG() in that >> case, and the associated __builtin_unreachable() should prevent the >> special version from being emitted. If order_base_2() is defined for input >> 0, it should not invoke ilog2() with that argument, and the problem should >> go away as well. > > I don't necessarily think it should BUG() if it's not defined for input > 0; things like __ffs don't do that and we'd be introducing conditional > checks for cases that should not happen. The comment above order_base_2 > does suggest that ob2(0) should return 0, but it can actually end up > invoking ilog2(-1), which is obviously wrong. > > I could update the comment, but that doesn't fix the build issue. > Fixing roundup_pow_of_two() [which is arguably incorrect] would probably fix the build issue as well, no? diff --git a/include/linux/log2.h b/include/linux/log2.h index fd7ff3d91e6a..8a4be5e4223b 100644 --- a/include/linux/log2.h +++ b/include/linux/log2.h @@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n) #define roundup_pow_of_two(n) \ ( \ __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \ - (n == 1) ? 1 : \ + (n <= 1) ? 1 : \ (1UL << (ilog2((n) - 1) + 1)) \ ) : \ __roundup_pow_of_two(n)
Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
On 17 October 2016 at 19:38, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm seeing an arm64 build failure with -rc1 and GCC trunk, although I
> believe that the new compiler behaviour at the heart of the problem
> has the potential to affect other architectures and other pieces of
> kernel code relying on dead-code elimination to remove deliberately
> undefined functions.
>
> The failure looks like:
>
> | drivers/built-in.o: In function `armada_3700_add_composite_clk':
> |
> | linux/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c:351:
> | undefined reference to `ilog2_NaN'
> |
> | linux/drivers/clk/mvebu/armada-37xx-periph.c:351:(.text+0xc72e0):
> | relocation truncated to fit: R_AARCH64_CALL26 against undefined symbol
> | `ilog2_NaN'
> |
> | make: *** [vmlinux] Error 1
>
> and if we look at the source for armada_3700_add_composite_clk, we see
> that this is caused by:
>
> int table_size = 0;
>
> rate->reg = reg + (u64)rate->reg;
> for (clkt = rate->table; clkt->div; clkt++)
> table_size++;
> rate->width = order_base_2(table_size);
>
> order_base_2 calls ilog2, which has the ilog2_NaN call:
>
> #define ilog2(n)\
> ( \
> __builtin_constant_p(n) ? ( \
> (n) < 1 ? ilog2_NaN() : \
>
> This is because we're in a curious case where GCC has emitted a
> special-cased version of armada_3700_add_composite_clk, with table_size
> effectively constant-folded as 0. Whilst we shouldn't see this in a
> non-buggy kernel (hence the deliberate call to the undefined function
> ilog2_NaN), it means that the final link fails because we have a
> ilog2_NaN in the code, with a runtime check on table_size.
>
This is indeed an unintended side effect, but I would not call it
weird behaviour at all. The code in its current form does not handle
the case where it could end up passing 0 into order_base_2(), and we
simply need to handle that case. If order_base_2() is not defined for
input 0, it should BUG() in that case, and the associated
__builtin_unreachable() should prevent the special version from being
emitted. If order_base_2() is defined for input 0, it should not
invoke ilog2() with that argument, and the problem should go away as
well.
--
Ard.
> In other words, __builtin_constant_p appears to be weaker than we've
> been assuming. Talking to the compiler guys here, this is due to the
> "jump-threading" optimisation pass, so the patch below disables that.
>
> A simpler example is:
>
> int foo();
> int bar();
>
> int count(int *argc)
> {
> int table_size = 0;
>
> for (; *argc; argc++)
> table_size++;
>
> if (__builtin_constant_p(table_size))
> return table_size == 0 ? foo() : bar();
>
> return bar();
> }
>
> which compiles to:
>
> count:
> ldr w0, [x0]
> cbz w0, .L4
> b bar
> .p2align 3
> .L4:
> b foo
>
> and, with the "optimisation" disabled:
>
> count:
> b bar
>
> Thoughts? It feels awfully fragile disabling passes like this, but with
> GCC transforming the code like this, I can't immediately think of a way
> to preserve the intended behaviour of the code.
>
> Will
>
> --->8
>
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> index 512e47a53e9a..750873d6d11e 100644
> --- a/Makefile
> +++ b/Makefile
> @@ -641,6 +641,11 @@ endif
> # Tell gcc to never replace conditional load with a non-conditional one
> KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,--param=allow-store-data-races=0)
>
> +# Stop gcc from converting switches into a form that defeats dead code
> +# elimination and can subsequently lead to calls to intentionally
> +# undefined functions appearing in the final link.
> +KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,--param=max-fsm-thread-path-insns=1)
> +
> include scripts/Makefile.gcc-plugins
>
> ifdef CONFIG_READABLE_ASM
