Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-62568-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:15:39 -0800
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiKq0bNqGDsh2dmYOeKub9dm8HaMHEJj-0XDvG-9m4JQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20240208220604.140859-1-seanjc@google.com> <CAKwvOdk_obRUkD6WQHhS9uoFVe3HrgqH5h+FpqsNNgmj4cmvCQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <DM6PR02MB40587AD6ABBF1814E9CCFA7CB84B2@DM6PR02MB4058.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAHk-=wi3p5C1n03UYoQhgVDJbh_0ogCpwbgVGnOdGn6RJ6hnKA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZcZyWrawr1NUCiQZ@google.com> <CAKwvOdmKaYYxf7vjvPf2vbn-Ly+4=JZ_zf+OcjYOkWCkgyU_kA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wgEABCwu7HkJufpWC=K7u_say8k6Tp9eHvAXFa4DNXgzQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wgBt9SsYjyHWn1ZH5V0Q7P6thqv_urVCTYqyWNUWSJ6_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFULd4ZUa56KDLXSoYjoQkX0BcJwaipy3ZrEW+0tbi_Lz3FYAw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHk-=wiKq0bNqGDsh2dmYOeKub9dm8HaMHEJj-0XDvG-9m4JQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Zcq0qwfjrOYPeR1h@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Kconfig: Explicitly disable asm goto w/ outputs on gcc-11
 (and earlier)
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>, 
	Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>, "Andrew Pinski (QUIC)" <quic_apinski@quicinc.com>, 
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>, 
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Sun, Feb 11, 2024, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 at 03:12, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'd suggest the original poster to file a bug report in the GCC
> > bugzilla. This way, the bug can be properly analysed and eventually
> > fixed. The detailed instructions are available at
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/
> 
> Yes, please. Sean?
> 
> In order to *not* confuse it with the "asm goto with output doesn't
> imply volatile" bugs, could you make a bug report that talks purely
> about the code generation issue that happens even with a manually
> added volatile (your third code sequence in your original email)?

Will do.  Got a bug report ready, just waiting for a GCC Bugzilla account to be
created for me so I can file it...