Fix build with GCC 10 #6
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
commit e33a814e772cdc36436c8c188d8c42d019fda639 upstream.
gcc 10 will default to -fno-common, which causes this error at link
time:
(.text+0x0): multiple definition of `yylloc'; dtc-lexer.lex.o (symbol from plugin):(.text+0x0): first defined here
This is because both dtc-lexer as well as dtc-parser define the same
global symbol yyloc. Before with -fcommon those were merged into one
defintion. The proper solution would be to to mark this as "extern",
however that leads to:
dtc-lexer.l:26:16: error: redundant redeclaration of 'yylloc' [-Werror=redundant-decls]
26 | extern YYLTYPE yylloc;
| ^~~~~~
In file included from dtc-lexer.l:24:
dtc-parser.tab.h:127:16: note: previous declaration of 'yylloc' was here
127 | extern YYLTYPE yylloc;
| ^~~~~~
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
which means the declaration is completely redundant and can just be
dropped.
Signed-off-by: Dirk Mueller <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Gibson <[email protected]>
[robh: cherry-pick from upstream]
Cc: [email protected]
Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]>
[nc: Also apply to dtc-lexer.lex.c_shipped due to a lack of
e039139be8c2, where dtc-lexer.l started being used]
Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
[amartinz: backport for 3.4]
Signed-off-by: Alexander Martinz <[email protected]>
NotKit
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 9, 2023
This moves ARM over to the asm-generic/unaligned.h header. This has the
benefit of better code generated especially for ARMv7 on gcc 4.7+
compilers.
As Arnd Bergmann, points out: The asm-generic version uses the "struct"
version for native-endian unaligned access and the "byteshift" version
for the opposite endianess. The current ARM version however uses the
"byteshift" implementation for both.
Thanks to Nicolas Pitre for the excellent analysis:
Test case:
int foo (int *x) { return get_unaligned(x); }
long long bar (long long *x) { return get_unaligned(x); }
With the current ARM version:
foo:
ldrb r3, [r0, #2] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B]
ldrb r1, [r0, #1] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B]
ldrb r2, [r0, #0] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)]
mov r3, r3, asl #16 @ tmp154, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B],
ldrb r0, [r0, #3] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B]
orr r3, r3, r1, asl #8 @, tmp155, tmp154, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B],
orr r3, r3, r2 @ tmp157, tmp155, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)]
orr r0, r3, r0, asl #24 @,, tmp157, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B],
bx lr @
bar:
stmfd sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7} @,
mov r2, #0 @ tmp184,
ldrb r5, [r0, #6] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 6B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 6B]
ldrb r4, [r0, #5] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 5B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 5B]
ldrb ip, [r0, #2] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B]
ldrb r1, [r0, #4] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 4B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 4B]
mov r5, r5, asl #16 @ tmp175, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 6B],
ldrb r7, [r0, #1] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B]
orr r5, r5, r4, asl #8 @, tmp176, tmp175, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 5B],
ldrb r6, [r0, #7] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 7B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 7B]
orr r5, r5, r1 @ tmp178, tmp176, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 4B]
ldrb r4, [r0, #0] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)]
mov ip, ip, asl #16 @ tmp188, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B],
ldrb r1, [r0, #3] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B]
orr ip, ip, r7, asl #8 @, tmp189, tmp188, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B],
orr r3, r5, r6, asl #24 @,, tmp178, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 7B],
orr ip, ip, r4 @ tmp191, tmp189, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)]
orr ip, ip, r1, asl #24 @, tmp194, tmp191, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B],
mov r1, r3 @,
orr r0, r2, ip @ tmp171, tmp184, tmp194
ldmfd sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7}
bx lr
In both cases the code is slightly suboptimal. One may wonder why
wasting r2 with the constant 0 in the second case for example. And all
the mov's could be folded in subsequent orr's, etc.
Now with the asm-generic version:
foo:
ldr r0, [r0, #0] @ unaligned @,* x
bx lr @
bar:
mov r3, r0 @ x, x
ldr r0, [r0, #0] @ unaligned @,* x
ldr r1, [r3, #4] @ unaligned @,
bx lr @
This is way better of course, but only because this was compiled for
ARMv7. In this case the compiler knows that the hardware can do
unaligned word access. This isn't that obvious for foo(), but if we
remove the get_unaligned() from bar as follows:
long long bar (long long *x) {return *x; }
then the resulting code is:
bar:
ldmia r0, {r0, r1} @ x,,
bx lr @
So this proves that the presumed aligned vs unaligned cases does have
influence on the instructions the compiler may use and that the above
unaligned code results are not just an accident.
Still... this isn't fully conclusive without at least looking at the
resulting assembly fron a pre ARMv6 compilation. Let's see with an
ARMv5 target:
foo:
ldrb r3, [r0, #0] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp139,* x
ldrb r1, [r0, #1] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp140,
ldrb r2, [r0, #2] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp143,
ldrb r0, [r0, #3] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp146,
orr r3, r3, r1, asl #8 @, tmp142, tmp139, tmp140,
orr r3, r3, r2, asl #16 @, tmp145, tmp142, tmp143,
orr r0, r3, r0, asl #24 @,, tmp145, tmp146,
bx lr @
bar:
stmfd sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7} @,
ldrb r2, [r0, #0] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp139,* x
ldrb r7, [r0, #1] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp140,
ldrb r3, [r0, #4] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp149,
ldrb r6, [r0, #5] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp150,
ldrb r5, [r0, #2] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp143,
ldrb r4, [r0, #6] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp153,
ldrb r1, [r0, #7] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp156,
ldrb ip, [r0, #3] @ zero_extendqisi2 @ tmp146,
orr r2, r2, r7, asl #8 @, tmp142, tmp139, tmp140,
orr r3, r3, r6, asl #8 @, tmp152, tmp149, tmp150,
orr r2, r2, r5, asl #16 @, tmp145, tmp142, tmp143,
orr r3, r3, r4, asl #16 @, tmp155, tmp152, tmp153,
orr r0, r2, ip, asl #24 @,, tmp145, tmp146,
orr r1, r3, r1, asl #24 @,, tmp155, tmp156,
ldmfd sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7}
bx lr
Compared to the initial results, this is really nicely optimized and I
couldn't do much better if I were to hand code it myself.
Change-Id: I91ea5a5e83de4bbdbb53883fe0dbf00719a8e382
Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Nicolas Pitre <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Thomas Petazzoni <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When building the kernel on an up-to-date (at the time of writing) Fedora 33 host, kernel compilation fails with:
Host LD and GCC:
This PR fixed compilation on my system.