Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:6744:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id w4csp3477012pxu; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 11:05:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzRPRRS+V9f6Bq5/3VLkZHnwDq3h8DmlwzveYULJieANs9bw8xX/x/LpE5ql6ox55MXafqX X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:220f:: with SMTP id cq15mr10436265edb.24.1602439501201; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 11:05:01 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1602439501; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=s9QlJhkN+6KLMFZifDAbnEWoH2CuWYkrfWOOzdzIi7tp+rKAxTfqEWnz7ByjWO1d+U BEIP8rEy7pm1LBxWW4OaTPFQ7TPK/224rBGpQMOysnBBnNdZxkoH0MvfVFj9otB4Qe6a 82n8bTM7u4+m7mWArSq6fQumaO5Y/d0YyzQ+FA/PcMtVgSnBT0/K2tOnqXyDnhvr7ih/ fXnQYR/XmPktHvElsZHd/863ud2h3/QI97DGGObRBh/8Jv5JnMeF2UttYO2OAbRnu71k tJ4Tt0YwdyQvVHXh64nuOFeiG3ZJ/2IW1qGiS6hFxJ+eIkT2As3DYq96Y5EVuqY0XheL hMiw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:date :references:subject:cc:to:from; bh=mIOWSIweJwOTsGHLsWQgqUfoBEAx696WlJTm2XB0W2U=; b=kjaK7RyjsRT+WN2qwiQ2W6c9BDJX04Tr+C+i96MDtU3+pVdfn8PaluFaHIWlC5eYfG Ula/Q7vgIS1oRvMkzkLWY8qnJoS7QAXms+7ZbwK9GwL3i2UTNodILdzfhq5wVjODihJs j5R1Y0ulSgS/BS8J//L+OLmZE+5PwDkZB3dy4ffiBgIRA57KGLOhnt84ot2QatI/eLKy PLY1faNxlK7MYxXG0q2kMXoyNR0/MeK5Sr+0n0sN5gInro7qjgWeOHkEvyoIG3IFbXjt XWkeF8ZjDWsEFGz0NbvCa8p6HfT80lmMeqhwv+nyHLuFImJ85GyIOeXsCc7nH/KhGpZR DGgw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id dr4si6168673ejc.22.2020.10.11.11.04.37; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 11:05:01 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2387815AbgJKM2R (ORCPT + 99 others); Sun, 11 Oct 2020 08:28:17 -0400 Received: from albireo.enyo.de ([37.24.231.21]:59862 "EHLO albireo.enyo.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2387809AbgJKM2R (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Oct 2020 08:28:17 -0400 Received: from [172.17.203.2] (helo=deneb.enyo.de) by albireo.enyo.de with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1kRaSP-0007ye-GW; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 12:28:09 +0000 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kRaSP-0004Lt-Be; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 14:28:09 +0200 From: Florian Weimer To: Mark Wielaard Cc: Andi Kleen , Peter Zijlstra , Stephane Eranian , linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Jiri Olsa , Namhyung Kim , Ian Rogers , "Phillips\, Kim" , Mark Rutland , Masami Hiramatsu Subject: Re: Additional debug info to aid cacheline analysis References: <20201006131703.GR2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20201008070231.GS2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <50338de81b34031db8637337f08b89b588476211.camel@klomp.org> <20201008212259.gdhlwdswn5pu4zos@two.firstfloor.org> <20201010205836.GA2666@wildebeest.org> <87h7r1x8kp.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <20201011122336.GC2666@wildebeest.org> Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 14:28:09 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20201011122336.GC2666@wildebeest.org> (Mark Wielaard's message of "Sun, 11 Oct 2020 14:23:36 +0200") Message-ID: <874kn1x7za.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Mark Wielaard: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 02:15:18PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Mark Wielaard: >> >> > Yes, that would work. I don't know what the lowest supported GCC >> > version is, but technically it was definitely fixed in 4.10.0, 4.8.4 >> > and 4.9.2. And various distros would probably have backported the >> > fix. But checking for 5.0+ would certainly give you a good version. >> > >> > How about the attached? >> >> Would it be possible to test for the actual presence of the bug, using >> -fcompare-debug? > > Yes, that was discussed in the original commit message, but it was decided > that disabling it unconditionaly was easier. See commit 2062afb4f. I think the short test case was not yet available at the time of the Linux commit. But then it may not actually detect the bug in all affected compilers. Anyway, making this conditional on the GCC version is already a clear improvement.