Re: BPF GCC status - Nov 2023

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 11/30/23 7:13 AM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
On 11/29/23 2:08 AM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
On 11/28/23 11:23 AM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
[During LPC 2023 we talked about improving communication between the GCC
    BPF toolchain port and the kernel side.  This is the first periodical
    report that we plan to publish in the GCC wiki and send to interested
    parties.  Hopefully this will help.]

GCC wiki page for the port: https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/BPFBackEnd
IRC channel: #gccbpf at irc.oftc.net.
Help on using the port: gcc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Patches and/or development discussions: gcc-patches@xxxxxxx
Thanks a lot for detailed report. Really helpful to nail down
issues facing one or both compilers. See comments below for
some mentioned issues.

Assembler
=========
[...]

- In the Pseudo-C syntax register names are not preceded by % characters
     nor any other prefix.  A consequence of that is that in contexts like
     instruction operands, where both register names and expressions
     involving symbols are expected, there is no way to disambiguate
     between them.  GAS was allowing symbols like `w3' or `r5' in syntactic
     contexts where no registers were expected, such as in:

       r0 = w3 ll  ; GAS interpreted w3 as symbol, clang emits error

     The clang assembler wasn't allowing that.  During LPC we agreed that
     the simplest approach is to not allow any symbol to have the same name
     than a register, in any context.  So we changed GAS so it now doesn't
     allow to use register names as symbols in any expression, such as:

       r0 = w3 + 1 ll  ; This now fails for both GAS and llvm.
       r0 = 1 + w3 ll  ; NOTE this does not fail with llvm, but it should.
Could you provide a reproducible case above for llvm? llvm does not
support syntax like 'r0 = 1 + w3 ll'. For add, it only supports
'r1 += r2' or 'r1 += 100' syntax.
It is a 128-bit load with an expression.  In compiler explorer, clang:

    int
    foo ()
    {
      asm volatile ("r1 = 10 + w3 ll");
      return 0;
    }

I get:

    foo:                                    # @foo
            r1 = 10+w3 ll
            r0 = 0
            exit

i.e. `10 + w3' is interpreted as an expression with two operands: the
literal number 10 and a symbol (not a register) `w3'.

If the expression is `w3+10' instead, your parser recognizes the w3 as a
register name and errors out, as expected.

I suppose llvm allows to hook on the expression parser to handle
individual operands.  That's how we handled this in GAS.
Thanks for the code. I can reproduce the result with compiler explorer.
The following is the link https://godbolt.org/z/GEGexf1Pj
where I added -grecord-gcc-switches to dump compilation flags
into .s file.

The following is the compiler explorer compilation command line:
/opt/compiler-explorer/clang-trunk-20231129/bin/clang-18 -g -o /app/output.s \
   -S --target=bpf -fcolor-diagnostics -gen-reproducer=off -O2 \
   -g -grecord-command-line /app/example.c

I then compile the above C code with
   clang -g -S --target=bpf -fcolor-diagnostics -gen-reproducer=off -O2 -g -grecord-command-line t.c
with identical flags.

I tried locally with llvm16/17/18. They all failed compilation since
'r1 = 10+w3 ll' cannot be recognized by the llvm.
We will investigate why llvm18 in compiler explorer compiles
differently from my local build.
I updated git llvm master today and I managed to reproduce locally with:

jemarch@termi:~/gnu/src/llvm-project/llvm/build$ clang --version
clang version 18.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git 586986a063ee4b9a7490aac102e103bab121c764)
Target: unknown
Thread model: posix
InstalledDir: /usr/local/bin
$ cat foo.c
     int
     foo ()
     {
       asm volatile ("r1 = 10 + w3 ll");
       return 0;
     }
$ clang -target bpf -c foo.c
$ llvm-objdump -dr foo.o

foo.o:	file format elf64-bpf

Disassembly of section .text:

0000000000000000 <foo>:
        0:	18 01 00 00 0a 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00	r1 = 0xa ll
		0000000000000000:  R_BPF_64_64	w3
        2:	b7 00 00 00 00 00 00 00	r0 = 0x0
        3:	95 00 00 00 00 00 00 00	exit

Could you share the cmake command line options when you build you clang?
My cmake command line looks like
cmake .. -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -G Ninja \
    -DLLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS="clang;lld;compiler-rt" \
    -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD="BPF;X86" \
    -DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS=ON \
    -DLLVM_ENABLE_ZLIB=ON \
    -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=$PWD/install

and cannot reproduce the issue.
Thanks!





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux