From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6313EA0524; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 09:51:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02BF5C926; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 09:51:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-il1-f193.google.com (mail-il1-f193.google.com [209.85.166.193]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEE2DCF3 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 09:51:33 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-il1-f193.google.com with SMTP id q1so3956929ilt.6 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 00:51:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fZs0f3s1F5jMX8F6rbrUuazLOhMlaifrn+a2xnuPeo0=; b=BPtJ3ttPSVv2jBLk7Op1eeVW9qWP3va2KSohTAkExAKaIlUBvYM/2sE0OZpjm1yzYy QWGUmLyydW7QdPZor8hYHU3nItk5JOFdBTYrkpQxNZZgvQdVGsf1EF3IFDEJpqRMDz2G QT9cJj1r7qIEDUyGlU+SXm+7aNWBs1IqejvT6hBGljlRovhQowJsuYDSPdHh4WJiL1ik ni5HA7iRWUF7SYnHr13EN+MxdUY4yhMSSK2yY0MM2E9yXVzY/lHgLnAB08vTIh9HUJBt CcEgoJnss0V/XJ1FPDd18XUdxo2PO7jryous+CP5SbnG6qrHMSqxqjoM2plvcPvrJCcd 3iRA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fZs0f3s1F5jMX8F6rbrUuazLOhMlaifrn+a2xnuPeo0=; b=ZaAKZo/7OMRWTNzAHsvRa5cgaRXhmIAIc3VgZ7dU5cNl3LmieRLIebtlhB0E3M3v1C L719oZjHDnDujM3r25R3sqJbtYpc2ucYySeG3FEJJbcSfrjk6emJRlSuNPQy4+f/qVsn 4VQxmNMn1Wn0UufjTLvYSTSSDTvfJoKazggOeFyGLyFWLIP3KYpmycIrE/HEnW6Pxul/ ZYX5joqm6/gbLzxz/8awk5ubB/OAVuIOTgeX9RhYrR/73DrYlCrW4yRgaIzs41xpgUjN SUa+xzC5nSYHri4aEJbea/JT1RsJnT/1UbRiZJ6kUVmnRZEZBAGtLdg3W0klSRWPX6UF Q5nA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532nB0rcO32J+WQiS6QhxRvrC1st/aFmjt6M1RXy8K8IWA1P4DqG 812O/FB7zY2ejiC+J+XrA1LIVr/ZeVfdJBUe7cI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz3+EnWqtjslydB4sJA0nhY+2I1SOtPijD6iX2p37Yg1mi6qYHKOCLWtYoEW7Vf6ydmuSyzUJpKxsfd6qGIuHE= X-Received: by 2002:a92:c7a2:: with SMTP id f2mr5875231ilk.294.1606467091945; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 00:51:31 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201127080903.26817-1-ruifeng.wang@arm.com> <20201127080903.26817-2-ruifeng.wang@arm.com> In-Reply-To: From: Jerin Jacob Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 14:21:15 +0530 Message-ID: To: David Marchand Cc: Ruifeng Wang , Jerin Jacob , Honnappa Nagarahalli , dev , nd , Feifei Wang Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] eal/arm: fix gcc build for optimization level 0 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 2:09 PM David Marchand wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 9:10 AM Ruifeng Wang wrote: > > > > Gcc build with '-O0' on platforms with RTE_ARM_FEATURE_ATOMICS set > > failed for: > > ../lib/librte_efd/rte_efd.c > > Assembler messages: > > 3866: Error: selected processor does not support `crc32cb w0,w0,w1' > > 3890: Error: selected processor does not support `crc32ch w0,w0,w1' > > 3914: Error: selected processor does not support `crc32cw w0,w0,w1' > > 3938: Error: selected processor does not support `crc32cx w0,w0,x1' > > > > This was caused by an architecture specifier added for Clang. > > Unlike Clang, Gcc considers each inline assembly block to be dependent > > and therefor, the architecture specifier impacts assemble of some > > blocks require certain extension support. > > I reproduced this error with -O0 for config/arm/arm64_octeontx2_linux_gcc. > The patch looks simple enough and it only affects ARM builds. > > Jerin, > Are you okay with this change for 20.11? > Or should we wait 21.02? I could reproduce the issue with meson build -Dbuildtype=debug --cross-file config/arm/arm64_octeontx2_linux_gcc This fix is OK. Request to merge for 20.11 Acked-by: Jerin Jacob > > Ruifeng, > Looking at the kernel, I see no distinction with gcc/clang, so I'd say > the kernel has the same issue, or is there something else that differs > in dpdk? > Besides, the kernel patch previously mentioned had a followup fix. > > > -- > David Marchand >