Messages in this thread |  | | From | Nick Desaulniers <> | Date | Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:33:09 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] powerpc/uaccess: Implement unsafe_put_user() using 'asm goto' |
| |
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 4:53 PM Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 03:43:55PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > Segher, Cristophe, I suspect Clang is missing support for the %L and %U > > output templates [1]. > > The arch/powerpc kernel first used the %U output modifier in 0c176fa80fdf > (from 2016), and %L in b8b572e1015f (2008). include/asm-ppc (and ppc64) > have had %U since 2005 (1da177e4c3f4), and %L as well (0c541b4406a6).
Thanks for all the references. So it looks like we should have failed sooner, if we didn't support those. Hmm...
> > Can you please point me to documentation/unit tests/source for > > these so that I can figure out what they should be doing, and look into > > implementing them in Clang? > > The PowerPC part of > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Machine-Constraints.html#Machine-Constraints > (sorry, no anchor) documents %U.
I thought those were constraints, not output templates? Oh, The asm statement must also use %U<opno> as a placeholder for the “update” flag in the corresponding load or store instruction. got it.
> > Traditionally the source code is the documentation for this. The code > here starts with the comment > /* Write second word of DImode or DFmode reference. Works on register > or non-indexed memory only. */ > (which is very out-of-date itself, it works fine for e.g. TImode as well, > but alas). > > Unit tests are completely unsuitable for most compiler things like this.
What? No, surely one may write tests for output operands. Grepping for `%L` in gcc/ was less fun than I was hoping.
> > The source code is gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c, easiest is to search for > 'L' (with those quotes). Function print_operand. > > HtH,
Yes, perfect, thank you so much! So it looks like LLVM does not yet handle %L properly for memory operands. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46186#c4 It's neat to see how this is implemented in GCC (and how many aren't implemented in LLVM, yikes :( ). For reference, this is implemented in PPCAsmPrinter::PrintAsmOperand() and PPCAsmPrinter::PrintAsmMemoryOperand() in llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCAsmPrinter.cpp. GCC switches first on the modifier characters, then the operand type. LLVM dispatches on operand type, then modifier. When I was looking into LLVM's AsmPrinter class, I was surprised to see it's basically an assembler that just has complex logic to just do a bunch of prints, so it makes sense to see that pattern in GCC literally calling printf. Not drastically different than my first toy compiler https://nickdesaulniers.github.io/blog/2015/05/25/interpreter-compiler-jit/ (looking back at that post now knowing what relocations are, I feel I should probably add a note that that's a problem that's being solved there. Didn't know it at the time).
Some things I don't understand from PPC parlance is the "mode" (preinc, predec, premodify) and small data operands?
IIUC the bug report correctly, it looks like LLVM is failing for the __put_user_asm2_goto case for -m32. A simple reproducer: https://godbolt.org/z/jBBF9b
void foo(long long in, long long* out) { asm volatile( "stw%X1 %0, %1\n\t" "stw%X1 %L0, %L1" ::"r"(in), "m"(*out)); } prints (in GCC): foo: stw 3, 0(5) stw 4, 4(5) blr (first time looking at ppc assembler, seems constants and registers are not as easy to distinguish, https://developer.ibm.com/technologies/linux/articles/l-ppc/ say "Get used to it." LOL, ok). so that's "store word from register 3 into dereference of register 5 plus 0, then store word from register 4 into dereference of register 5 plus 4?" Guessing the ppc32 abi is ILP32 putting long long's into two separate registers? Seems easy to implement in LLVM (short of those modes/small data operands). https://reviews.llvm.org/D81767 -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers
|  |