[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BD7773622145634B952E5B54ACA8E349AA24BE1D@PUMAIL01.pu.imgtec.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 07:16:46 +0000
From: Jaydeep Patil <Jaydeep.Patil@...tec.com>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
CC: "musl@...ts.openwall.com" <musl@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix atomic_arch.h for MIPS32 R6
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rich Felker [mailto:dalias@...ifal.cx] On Behalf Of Rich Felker
>Sent: 29 March 2016 AM 09:41
>To: Jaydeep Patil
>Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
>Subject: Re: [musl] [PATCH] Fix atomic_arch.h for MIPS32 R6
>
>On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 03:54:02AM +0000, Jaydeep Patil wrote:
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Rich Felker [mailto:dalias@...ifal.cx] On Behalf Of Rich Felker
>> >Sent: 28 March 2016 PM 06:35
>> >To: Jaydeep Patil
>> >Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
>> >Subject: Re: [musl] [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
>>
>> This is what compiler has generated for above function:
>>
>> $ gcc -c -o main.o main.c -O3 -mips32r6 -mabi=32
>>
>> Objdump:
>>
>> 00000000 <ll1k>:
>> 0: 24821000 addiu v0,a0,4096
>> 4: 7c420036 ll v0,0(v0)
>> 8: d81f0000 jrc ra
>> c: 00000000 nop
>
>Can you try gcc -S instead of -c (still at -O3) to produce asm output without
>assembling it?
Generated asssembly:
#APP
# 4 "test.c" 1
ll $2, 4096($4)
# 0 "" 2
#NO_APP
jrc $31
Even if we set "noreorder" before LL, assembler generates addiu+ll:
00000000 <ll1k>:
0: 24821000 addiu v0,a0,4096
4: 7c420036 ll v0,0(v0)
8: d81f0000 jrc ra
c: 00000000 nop
>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.
