[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 07/12] xen/arm: cpuerrata: Match register size with value size in check_workaround_*
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi, > > On 18/04/2019 19:23, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Apr 2019, Julien Grall wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On 4/17/19 9:28 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > > On Wed, 27 Mar 2019, Julien Grall wrote: > > > > > Clang is pickier than GCC for the register size in asm statement. It > > > > > expects the register size to match the value size. > > > > > > > > > > The asm statement expects a 32-bit (resp. 64-bit) value on Arm32 > > > > > (resp. Arm64) whereas the value is a boolean (Clang consider to be > > > > > 32-bit). > > > > > > > > > > It would be possible to impose 32-bit register for both architecture > > > > > but this require the code to use __OP32. However, it does not really > > > > > improve the assembly generated. Instead, replace switch the variable > > > > > to use register_t. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > xen/include/asm-arm/cpuerrata.h | 2 +- > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/cpuerrata.h > > > > > b/xen/include/asm-arm/cpuerrata.h > > > > > index 55ddfda272..88ef3ca934 100644 > > > > > --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/cpuerrata.h > > > > > +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/cpuerrata.h > > > > > @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ static inline bool check_workaround_##erratum(void) > > > > > \ > > > > > return false; \ > > > > > else \ > > > > > { \ > > > > > - bool ret; \ > > > > > + register_t ret; \ > > > > > \ > > > > > asm volatile (ALTERNATIVE("mov %0, #0", \ > > > > > "mov %0, #1", \ > > > > > > > > This is OK. Could you please also change the return statement below? > > > > Maybe something like: > > > > > > > > return unlikely(!!ret); > > > Why? The compiler will implicitly convert the int to bool. 0 will turn to > > > false, all the other will be true. > > > > > > We actually been actively removing !! when the type is bool (see the > > > example > > > in get_paged_frame in common/grant_table.c). > > > > Really? Too bad, I loved the explicit conversions to bool. This is a > > matter of code style, not correctness, so usually I wouldn't care much. > > But I went to read MISRA-C to figure out if there are any differences > > from that point of view. From Rule 10.3, it looks like it is not > > compliant, because they say that: > > > > bool_t bla = 0; > > > > is not MISRA-C compliant. While: > > > > int c = 1; > > bool_t bla = c == 0; > > > > is compliant. So, if I read this right: > > > > return !!ret //compliant > > return ret; //not compliant > > > > I am not 100% sure though. > > And if you read that rule the following would also be non-compliant > > bool is_nonzero(int b) > { > return b; > } Yes, I think you are right. > I know this example is pretty exaggerated but then does it mean the following > code is also non-compliant? > > bool is_nonzero(int b) > { > if (b) > return true; > else > return false; > } > > If it is considered compliant, then it does not make sense. Yes, I think this is not compliant too. Also, from what I have been told, this example is famous for being one of the most extreme examples of MISRA-C non-compliance. I think the compliant version would be: bool is_nonzero(int b) { if (b != 0) return true; else return false; } This is also compliant: bool is_nonzero(int b) { return (b != 0); } _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |