On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:30 AM Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 2:07 PM Nick Desaulniers > <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:19 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 9:08 AM S, Shirish <sshankar@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 10/15/2019 3:52 AM, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > > > > > > My gcc build fails with below errors: > > > > > > > > dcn_calcs.c:1:0: error: -mpreferred-stack-boundary=3 is not between 4 and 12 > > > > > > > > dcn_calc_math.c:1:0: error: -mpreferred-stack-boundary=3 is not between 4 and 12 > > > > I was able to reproduce this failure on pre-7.1 versions of GCC. It > > seems that when: > > 1. code is using doubles > > 2. setting -mpreferred-stack-boundary=3 -mno-sse2, ie. 8B stack alignment > > than GCC produces that error: > > https://godbolt.org/z/7T8nbH > > > > That's already a tall order of constraints, so it's understandable > > that the compiler would just error likely during instruction > > selection, but was eventually taught how to solve such constraints. > > > > > > > > > > While GPF observed on clang builds seem to be fixed. > > > > Thanks for the report. Your testing these patches is invaluable, Shirish! > > > > > > > > Ok, so it seems that gcc insists on having at least 2^4 bytes stack > > > alignment when > > > SSE is enabled on x86-64, but does not actually rely on that for > > > correct operation > > > unless it's using sse2. So -msse always has to be paired with > > > -mpreferred-stack-boundary=3. > > > > Seemingly only for older versions of GCC, pre 7.1. > > > > > > > > For clang, it sounds like the opposite is true: when passing 16 byte > > > stack alignment > > > and having sse/sse2 enabled, it requires the incoming stack to be 16 > > > byte aligned, > > > > I don't think it requires the incoming stack to be 16B aligned for > > sse2, I think it requires the incoming and current stack alignment to > > match. Today it does not, which is why we observe GPFs. > > > > > but passing 8 byte alignment makes it do the right thing. > > > > > > So, should we just always pass $(call cc-option, -mpreferred-stack-boundary=4) > > > to get the desired outcome on both? > > > > Hmmm...I would have liked to remove it outright, as it is an ABI > > mismatch that is likely to result in instability and non-fun-to-debug > > runtime issues in the future. I suspect my patch does work for GCC > > 7.1+. The question is: Do we want to either: > > 1. mark AMDGPU broken for GCC < 7.1, or > > 2. continue supporting it via stack alignment mismatch? > > > > 2 is brittle, and may break at any point in the future, but if it's > > working for someone it does make me feel bad to outright disable it. > > What I'd image 2 looks like is (psuedo code in a Makefile): > > Well, it's been working as is for years now, at least with gcc, so I'd > hate to break that. Ok, I'm happy to leave that as is for GCC, then. Would you prefer I modify it for GCC >7.1 or just leave it alone (maybe I'll add a comment about *why* it's done for GCC)? Would you prefer 1 patch or 4? > > Alex > > > > > if CC_IS_GCC && GCC_VERSION < 7.1: > > set stack alignment to 16B and hope for the best Ie, this ^ > > > > So my diff would be amended to keep the stack alignment flags, but > > only to support GCC < 7.1. And that assumes my change compiles with > > GCC 7.1+. (Looks like it does for me locally with GCC 8.3, but I would > > feel even more confident if someone with hardware to test on and GCC > > 7.1+ could boot test). -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers _______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
