On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 at 08:21, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I'm utterly confused, what are these new problems you're referring to?
Random ugly code, untested, special versions for different config options.
> And how specifically is this more fragile?
Random ugly code, untested, special versions for different config options.
__builtin_frame_address() is much more complex than just the old "use
a register variable".
> AFAICT, there was one known bug before the patches. Now there are zero
> known bugs.
Big surprise - since it hasn't been tested on very many compiler versions.
> I'm excited to hear we can get rid of a lot of old GCC cruft, but this
> has nothing to do with the compiler version.
>
> It's needed for CONFIG_UNWINDER_FRAME_POINTER, for all compiler
> versions. Otherwise the callee may skip the frame pointer setup before
> doing the call.
So you claim. But the original ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT code was for a gcc
bug that was reportedly fixed in gcc-7.1
So is it *actually* required?
Because in my testing, gcc doesn't move inline asms to before the
frame pointer setup any more.
But I actually didn't base my arguments on my very limited testing,
but on our own documented history of this thing.
In your own words from 8 years go in commit f5caf621ee35 ("x86/asm:
Fix inline asm call constraints for Clang"), just having the register
variable makes the problem go away:
With GCC 7.2, however, GCC's behavior has changed. It now changes its
behavior based on the conversion of the register variable to a global.
That somehow convinces it to *always* set up the frame pointer before
inserting *any* inline asm. (Therefore, listing the variable as an
output constraint is a no-op and is no longer necessary.)
and the whole ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT thing is just unnecessary.
So I repeat: why are we making the code worse?
Linus
|