Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: Build failure with v4.9-rc1 and GCC trunk -- compiler weirdness
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 16:50:02 +0100
Message-ID: <t6rO2-5RR-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <stkZj-7hj-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <su18f-37s-83@gated-at.bofh.it> <su1rA-3fC-43@gated-at.bofh.it> <su1rC-3fC-109@gated-at.bofh.it> <su1Bh-3zK-65@gated-at.bofh.it> <su1UC-3KZ-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <t66qf-8ov-41@gated-at.bofh.it> <t672X-pD-43@gated-at.bofh.it> <t6b6y-3hm-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <t6lIB-1UO-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <t6rO1-5RR-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: robomod@news.nic.it
Approved: robomod@news.nic.it
Lines: 152
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
Xref: csiph.com linux.kernel:1572481

On 2 February 2017 at 15:43, Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 02/02/2017 01:17 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 1 February 2017 at 21:50, Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On 02/01/2017 09:36 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>>> On 1 February 2017 at 16:58, Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com> 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
>>>>>>> <markus@trippelsdorf.de> 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 <linux/bitops.h>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  /*
>>>>>> - * 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 not sure
>> what you'd want to update here?
>>
>
> ob2(1) = 1  for the __builtin_constant_p case which doesn't
> match the comment of ob2(1) = 0. So my statement should actually
> be is this correct?
>
> Thanks,
> Laura

You are right. But the final one I proposed is correct:

#define order_base_2(n)                        \
(                                              \
       __builtin_constant_p(n) ? (             \
               ((n) == 0 || (n) == 1) ? 0 :    \
               ilog2((n) - 1) + 1) :           \
       __order_base_2(n)                       \
)

and solves Joe's issue as well.

I will submit this as a proper patch.

Thanks,
Ard.