[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160328130451.GH21636@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 09:04:51 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: Jaydeep Patil <Jaydeep.Patil@...tec.com>
Cc: "musl@...ts.openwall.com" <musl@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix atomic_arch.h for MIPS32 R6
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 05:07:39AM +0000, Jaydeep Patil wrote:
> >> >I was just saying it makes the code less cluttered to use them
> >> >spuriously even though we don't need to:
> >> >
> >> > ".set push ; "
> >> >#if __mips_isa_rev < 6
> >> > ".set mips2 ; "
> >> >#endif
> >> > "ll %0, %1 ; .set pop"
> >> >
> >> >or similar.
> >> >
> >> >It's also not clear to me whether the "m" constraint is valid anymore
> >> >for the R6 ll/sc instructions since they take a 9-bit offset now instead of a
> >16-bit offset.
> >> >The compiler could generate an address expression whose offset part
> >> >does not fit in 9 bits. In that case we may need to #if the whole
> >> >function (or at least the __asm__ statement) separately rather than just
> >skipping the .set mips2....
> >> >
> >>
> >> The "m" constrain is still valid here, as the offset will be 0 in this case..
> >
> >How can you assume the offset will be 0? It's the compiler's choice what to
> >use. For instance, a_cas(&foo->bar, t, s) is likely to have an offset equal to
> >offsetof(__typeof__(foo),bar). AFAIK this happens in practice with small
> >offsets in mutex structures, etc. so the bug may be unlikely to be hit, but I
> >think it's still an incorrect-constraint bug.
>
> Compiler generates appropriate LL/SC based on the offset.
> Compiler adds the offset to the base register if it does not fit 9bits.
The compiler has no way of knowing that the operand will be used with
ll with the 9-bit offset restriction; as far as it knows, it will be
used in a normal context where a 16-bit offset is valid. I don't have
a toolchain that will target r6, but you can try the following program
which produces an offset of 4096 for loading p[1024]:
unsigned ll1k(volatile unsigned *p)
{
unsigned val;
__asm__ __volatile__ ("ll %0, %1" : "=r"(val) : "m"(p[1024]) : "memory" );
return val;
}
I would expect this to produce errors at assembly time on r6.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
