On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 1:13 AM Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 01:05:37AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 11:42 PM Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:04:38PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 09:08:03PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > > > > On 5/11/20 8:40 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 10:12:07PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > > > >> On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 12:12 AM Heinrich Schuchardt
> > > > > >> <xypron.g...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> GCC recognizes /* fallthrough */ if -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 is
> > > > > >>> enabled.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> FYI.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Linux decided to not use /* fallthrough */ any more
> > > > > >> because Clang does not recognize it.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> __attribute__((__fallthrough__)) is supported
> > > > > >> by both Clang and recent GCC.
> > > > > In fact Linux has a define:
> > > > >
> > > > > include/linux/compiler_attributes.h:200:# define fallthrough
> > > > > __attribute__((__fallthrough__))
> > > > >
> > > > > And in the code you would use
> > > > >
> > > > > case foo:
> > > > > fallthrough;
> > > > > case bar:
> > > > >
> > > > > But the Linux kernel still has a lot of lines with
> > > > >
> > > > > /* fallthrough */
> > > > >
> > > > > Documentation/process/deprecated.rst:
> > > > >
> > > > > <cite>
> > > > > As there have been a long list of flaws `due to missing "break"
> > > > > statements <https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/484.html>`_, we no
> > > > > longer allow implicit fall-through. In order to identify intentional
> > > > > fall-through cases, we have adopted a pseudo-keyword macro
> > > > > "fallthrough"
> > > > > which expands to gcc's extension `__attribute__((__fallthrough__))
> > > > > <https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Statement-Attributes.html>`_.
> > > > > (When
> > > > > the C17/C18 `[[fallthrough]]` syntax is more commonly supported by C
> > > > > compilers, static analyzers, and IDEs, we can switch to using that
> > > > > syntax for the macro pseudo-keyword.)
> > > > > </cite>
> > > > >
> > > > > Using the attribute is not standard C and not any better than using
> > > > > the
> > > > > comment. The real target is the C17 syntax.
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Linux is now doing treewide conversion
> > > > > >> from /* fallthrough */ to 'fallthrough;'.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> See include/linux/compiler_attributes.h in Linux.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I do not know if U-Boot wants to align with it.
> > > > > >> (up to Tom ?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A re-sync on the compiler headers again and making use of this
> > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > like a good idea, yes.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > We should enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough like the kernel does. This
> > > > > defaults to -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 and is happy with both the
> > > > > comment
> > > > > as well as with the attribute.
> > > > >
> > > > > @Tom:
> > > > > Will you update the compiler headers within this release cycle?
> > > > > Otherwise we should take the patch as is to get us closer to the
> > > > > -Wimplicit-fallthrough target.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not going to update it for this release cycle. I've done the
> > > > initial import and build and there's some fairly large changes related
> > > > to inlining that I want to look at harder to see if we can/should do
> > > > something about (I don't want to derail this thread, I'll start
> > > > another). But it's very far from zero size change and given the inline
> > > > changes I think it'll need real testing.
> > > >
> > > > And since the kernel isn't making a huge use yet of fallthrough; we can
> > > > afford to look a little harder at things.
> > >
> > > I think I've figured out the inline issue which is that we need
> > > scripts/Kconfig.include from the kernel, CC_HAS_ASM_INLINE Kconfig
> > > option, and re-sync with Kconfiglib, but that's still going to be enough
> > > stuff that I don't think it's good to pull in at -rc2.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I do not get how 'asm inline' support is related
> > to this topic.
> >
> > GCC 9 started to support 'asm inline' for the better inlining heuristic.
> > The kernel uses a bunch of inline assembly
> > that is not as expensive as it looks.
> >
> > As GCC is agnostic about the real cost of inline assembly,
> > 'asm inline' is a good hint if people know the real cost is quite small.
> > Then, GCC will be able to inline more functions.
> >
> > I do not know how important it is for U-Boot, though.
> >
> > What is causing you a trouble?
>
> So, it turns out that while we do want to grab the changes so that we
> can have CC_HAS_ASM_INLINE via Kconfig, it's not "it". What I see for
> virtually every board (with gcc-9.3 from kernel.org) is something like:
> rock960-rk3399 : all -8 rodata -4 spl/u-boot-spl:all +992
> spl/u-boot-spl:text +992 text -4
> u-boot: add: 67/-9, grow: 74/-92 bytes: 5072/-4928 (144)
> function old new
> delta
> static._compare_and_overwrite_entry - 348
> +348
> menu_interactive_choice - 288
> +288
> hex2bin - 200
> +200
> __fswab64 - 176
> +176
> __fswab32 - 144
> +144
> sdhci_reset - 136
> +136
> dwmci_fifo_ready - 124
> +124
> fdt_offset_ptr_ - 120
> +120
> menu_items_iter - 108
> +108
> generic_fls - 100
> +100
> fdt_set_totalsize - 96
> +96
> static.generic_fls - 84
> +84
OK, these functions previously disappeared because all
of the function call-sites were inlined.
If you resync <linux/compier*.h> with latest Linux,
they are not necessarily inlined.
In current U-Boot, 'static inline' is actually replaced with
__attribute__((always_inline)).
So, inlining is forcible.
See the code.
include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
#if !defined(CONFIG_ARCH_SUPPORTS_OPTIMIZED_INLINING) || \
!defined(CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING) || (__GNUC__ < 4)
#define inline inline __attribute__((always_inline)) notrace
#define __inline__ __inline__ __attribute__((always_inline)) notrace
#define __inline __inline __attribute__((always_inline)) notrace
In Linux, the following commits stopped doing that.
(both my commits)
ac7c3e4ff401b304489a031938dbeaab585bfe0a
889b3c1245de48ed0cacf7aebb25c489d3e4a3e9
Now, 'inline' is just a compiler hint.
The compiler does the best judge
whether to inline the function or not.
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
