Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220708231520.3958391-1-ndesaulniers@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220708231520.3958391-1-ndesaulniers@google.com>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Date:   Sun, 10 Jul 2022 21:13:08 +0200
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a0x2KJuCjupKuj6XAYUAeF47ZV4bWuEGUQFOcOK_Do2jA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] coresight: etm4x: avoid build failure with unrolled loops
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Cc:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
        Tao Zhang <quic_taozha@quicinc.com>,
        Mike Leach <mike.leach@linaro.org>,
        Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>, coresight@lists.linaro.org,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <llvm@lists.linux.dev>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 1:15 AM Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:

>         ({                                                                      \
>                 u64 __val;                                                      \
>                                                                                 \
> -               if (__builtin_constant_p((offset)))                             \
> +               if (__is_constexpr((offset)))                                   \
>                         __val = read_etm4x_sysreg_const_offset((offset));       \
>                 else                                                            \
>                         __val = etm4x_sysreg_read((offset), true, (_64bit));    \
>

This is clearly better than the current version using
__builtin_constant_p(), but
I don't think it's safe in all cases, since there are expressions that
are constant
expressions to the compiler but are not valid input to the assembler.

I would prefer to see this fixed differently, but doing this one first is also
fine with me:

Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>

        Arnd