Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200504230309.237398-1-ndesaulniers@google.com>
 <CAKwvOdmspKUknbzDn9kY2jMgkFw=Ktvst0ZtwambDOfybqJGWw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMzpN2iDottAY3p=GS0A_7XX7bpmWsmSOEcztMXNEEvcwHirjg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMzpN2iDottAY3p=GS0A_7XX7bpmWsmSOEcztMXNEEvcwHirjg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 May 2020 11:46:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdnxV_KwC-q73e3basJvo4-9FCGeMUOrZLj5xyt6Yyeh2A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: support i386 with Clang
To:     Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dmitry Golovin <dima@golovin.in>,
        Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:09 AM Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> wrote:
> This looks like the same issue that we just discussed for bitops.h.
> Add the "b" operand size modifier to force it to use the 8-bit
> register names (and probably also needs the "w" modifier in the 16-bit
> case).

While it does feel familiar, it is slightly different.
https://godbolt.org/z/Rme4Zg
That case was both compilers validating the inline asm, yet generating
assembly that the assembler would choke on.  This case is validation
in the front end failing.

Side note: would you mind sending a review by tag for v5 of that patch
if you think it's good to go?  It does fix a regression I'd prefer
didn't ship in 5.7.
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers