On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 4:31 PM, Matthias Kaehlcke <m...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> From some experiments it looks like clang, in difference to gcc, does
> not treat constant values passed as parameters to inline function as
> constants.
Yeah, I think gcc used to have those semantics a long time ago too.
Many of our __builtin_constant_p() uses are indeed just in macros, but
certainly not all.
Other examples are found in our "fortified" string functions.
There a clang build will likely simply miss some of the build-time
fortification checks, and trigger them at runtime instead.
Of course, we hopefully don't *have* any build-time failures, because
gcc will have caught them, so you won't care as long as clang is a
secondary compiler, but long-term they'd be good.
> I'll ask our compiler folks to take a look, with lower priority than
> other issues in this thread though.
Ack. "asm goto" is way more important. The __builtin_constant_p()
stuff tends to be for various peephole optimizations.
Another example of that can be found in our x86 bit operations macros:
static __always_inline void
set_bit(long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
{
if (IS_IMMEDIATE(nr)) {
asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "orb %1,%0"
: CONST_MASK_ADDR(nr, addr)
: "iq" ((u8)CONST_MASK(nr))
: "memory");
} else {
asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX __ASM_SIZE(bts) " %1,%0"
: BITOP_ADDR(addr) : "Ir" (nr) : "memory");
}
}
where that IS_IMMEDIATE() hides a __builtin_constant_p(). But we could
actually change that - for some reason the test_bit() case looks like
this:
#define test_bit(nr, addr) \
(__builtin_constant_p((nr)) \
? constant_test_bit((nr), (addr)) \
: variable_test_bit((nr), (addr)))
which is much more straightforward anyway. I'm not quite sure why we
did it that odd way anyway, but I bet it's just "hysterical raisins"
along with the test_bit() not needing inline asm at all for the
constant case.
Linus
