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;
Subject: extraneous generated EXTB (was Re: [PATCH 4/9] ARC: mm: do_page_fault
 refactor #3: tidyup vma access permission code)
To:     Claudiu Zissulescu <Claudiu.Zissulescu@synopsys.com>
CC:     Eugeniy Paltsev <Eugeniy.Paltsev@synopsys.com>,
        "paltsev@snyopsys.com" <paltsev@snyopsys.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@synopsys.com>,
        "linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.kernel.arc
References: <1557880176-24964-1-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com>
 <1557880176-24964-5-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com>
 <1558027448.2682.11.camel@synopsys.com>
 <C2D7FE5348E1B147BCA15975FBA2307501A2517B16@us01wembx1.internal.synopsys.com>
 <1558131743.2682.33.camel@synopsys.com>
From:   Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=vgupta@synopsys.com; keydata=
 mQINBFEffBMBEADIXSn0fEQcM8GPYFZyvBrY8456hGplRnLLFimPi/BBGFA24IR+B/Vh/EFk
 B5LAyKuPEEbR3WSVB1x7TovwEErPWKmhHFbyugdCKDv7qWVj7pOB+vqycTG3i16eixB69row
 lDkZ2RQyy1i/wOtHt8Kr69V9aMOIVIlBNjx5vNOjxfOLux3C0SRl1veA8sdkoSACY3McOqJ8
 zR8q1mZDRHCfz+aNxgmVIVFN2JY29zBNOeCzNL1b6ndjU73whH/1hd9YMx2Sp149T8MBpkuQ
 cFYUPYm8Mn0dQ5PHAide+D3iKCHMupX0ux1Y6g7Ym9jhVtxq3OdUI5I5vsED7NgV9c8++baM
 7j7ext5v0l8UeulHfj4LglTaJIvwbUrCGgtyS9haKlUHbmey/af1j0sTrGxZs1ky1cTX7yeF
 nSYs12GRiVZkh/Pf3nRLkjV+kH++ZtR1GZLqwamiYZhAHjo1Vzyl50JT9EuX07/XTyq/Bx6E
 dcJWr79ZphJ+mR2HrMdvZo3VSpXEgjROpYlD4GKUApFxW6RrZkvMzuR2bqi48FThXKhFXJBd
 JiTfiO8tpXaHg/yh/V9vNQqdu7KmZIuZ0EdeZHoXe+8lxoNyQPcPSj7LcmE6gONJR8ZqAzyk
 F5voeRIy005ZmJJ3VOH3Gw6Gz49LVy7Kz72yo1IPHZJNpSV5xwARAQABtCpWaW5lZXQgR3Vw
 dGEgKGFsaWFzKSA8dmd1cHRhQHN5bm9wc3lzLmNvbT6JAj4EEwECACgCGwMGCwkIBwMCBhUI
 AgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheABQJbBYpwBQkLx0HcAAoJEGnX8d3iisJeChAQAMR2UVbJyydOv3aV
 jmqP47gVFq4Qml1weP5z6czl1I8n37bIhdW0/lV2Zll+yU1YGpMgdDTHiDqnGWi4pJeu4+c5
 xsI/VqkH6WWXpfruhDsbJ3IJQ46//jb79ogjm6VVeGlOOYxx/G/RUUXZ12+CMPQo7Bv+Jb+t
 NJnYXYMND2Dlr2TiRahFeeQo8uFbeEdJGDsSIbkOV0jzrYUAPeBwdN8N0eOB19KUgPqPAC4W
 HCg2LJ/o6/BImN7bhEFDFu7gTT0nqFVZNXlOw4UcGGpM3dq/qu8ZgRE0turY9SsjKsJYKvg4
 djAaOh7H9NJK72JOjUhXY/sMBwW5vnNwFyXCB5t4ZcNxStoxrMtyf35synJVinFy6wCzH3eJ
 XYNfFsv4gjF3l9VYmGEJeI8JG/ljYQVjsQxcrU1lf8lfARuNkleUL8Y3rtxn6eZVtAlJE8q2
 hBgu/RUj79BKnWEPFmxfKsaj8of+5wubTkP0I5tXh0akKZlVwQ3lbDdHxznejcVCwyjXBSny
 d0+qKIXX1eMh0/5sDYM06/B34rQyq9HZVVPRHdvsfwCU0s3G+5Fai02mK68okr8TECOzqZtG
 cuQmkAeegdY70Bpzfbwxo45WWQq8dSRURA7KDeY5LutMphQPIP2syqgIaiEatHgwetyVCOt6
 tf3ClCidHNaGky9KcNSQ
Message-ID: <7923928f-1f4e-3fa8-3d38-40fcb2074b4a@synopsys.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 May 2019 10:58:08 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1558131743.2682.33.camel@synopsys.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 5/17/19 3:23 PM, Eugeniy Paltsev wrote:
> Hmmm,
> 
> so load the bool variable from memory is converted to such asm code:
> 
> ----------------->8------------------- 
> ldb	r2,[some_bool_address]
> extb_s	r2,r2
> ----------------->8-------------------
> 
> Could you please describe that the magic is going on there?
> 
> This extb_s instruction looks completely useless here, according on the LDB description from PRM:
> ----------------->8-------------------
> LD LDH LDW LDB LDD:
> The size of the requested data is specified by the data size field <.zz> and by default, data is zero
> extended from the most-significant bit of the data to the most-significant bit of the destination
> register.
> ----------------->8-------------------
> 
> Am I missing something?


@Claudiu is that a target specific optimization/tuning in ARC backend ?


> 
> On Thu, 2019-05-16 at 17:37 +0000, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> On 5/16/19 10:24 AM, Eugeniy Paltsev wrote:
>>>> +    unsigned int write = 0, exec = 0, mask;
>>>
>>> Probably it's better to use 'bool' type for 'write' and 'exec' as we really use them as a boolean variables.
>>
>> Right those are semantics, but the generated code for "bool" is not ideal - given
>> it is inherently a "char" it is promoted first to an int with an additional EXTB
>> which I really dislike.
>> Guess it is more of a style thing.
>>
>> -Vineet