On 09/10/2024 7:04 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 08.10.2024 18:37, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 08/10/2024 5:00 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> It's not unnecessary (as the earlier commit claimed): The integrated
>>> assembler of Clang up to 11 complains about an "invalid operand for
>>> instruction".
>>>
>>> Fixes: b42cf31d1165 ("x86: use alternative_input() in cache_flush()")
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
>>>
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/flushtlb.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/flushtlb.c
>>> @@ -286,7 +286,7 @@ void cache_flush(const void *addr, unsig
>>> * + prefix than a clflush + nop, and hence the prefix is added
>>> instead
>>> * of letting the alternative framework fill the gap by appending
>>> nops.
>>> */
>>> - alternative_input("ds clflush %[p]",
>>> + alternative_input("ds; clflush %[p]",
>> /* Clang-IAS < 12 needs the semicolon */ which can probably fit on the
>> end of the line.
> I've made it "Semicolon for Clang-IAS < 12" to actually fit on the line.
>
> I wonder whether I can take the reply as "ack with that change"?
Yeah, that's good enough.
Acked-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
>
>> Or we stop supporting such old versions of Clang/LLVM.
> As indicated in reply to Roger's proposal, that would leave me without
> any way to test with at least some Clang versions (unless I got into the
> business of also building my own Clang binaries).
Or using the upstream provided builds. (Seriously - this is something
the LLVM community completely outshine the GCC/Binutils community.)
Or using Gitlab CI.
~Andrew
