Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180404205848.GG87376@google.com>
References: <20180402095033.nfzcrmxvpm46dhbl@gmail.com> <CA+55aFzV8L-uv9706ryJ2mP9VGBuzqFVPu1cgYY+sZAtDAroqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180403085904.GY4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20180403095118.rpf7tj577dppvx7d@gmail.com>
 <20180403180658.GE87376@google.com> <20180404093007.GI4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180404191724.GF87376@google.com> <CAK8P3a1VFWYBymd3AeG1DwW++tCGsP9+vw6t8XSGHby2jmQPqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180404205848.GG87376@google.com>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date:   Wed, 4 Apr 2018 23:11:36 +0200
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a2tf3v6seq=OeyBakZ1ZXYzzL=tY=aHvKYv-GtD7sWeTA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/build changes for v4.17
To:     Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        James Y Knight <jyknight@google.com>,
        Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@google.com>,
        Stephen Hines <srhines@google.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@google.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>,
        Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@google.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> wrote:
> El Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 10:33:19PM +0200 Arnd Bergmann ha dit:
>>
>> In most cases, this is used to implement a fast-path for a helper
>> function, so not doing it the same way as gcc just results in
>> slower execution, but I assume we also have code that behaves
>> differently on clang compared to gcc because of this.
>
> I think I didn't come (knowingly) across that one yet. Could you point
> me to an instance that could be used as an example in a bug report?

This code

#include <linux/math64.h>
int f(u64 u)
{
        return div_u64(u, 100000);
}

results in a call to __do_div64() on 32-bit arm using clang, but
gets optimized into a set of multiply+shift on gcc.

The same thing should happen on x86, but haven't tried it
because of the 'asm goto' build failure in linux-next with clang.

      Arnd