Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 07/12] xen/arm: cpuerrata: Match register size with value size in check_workaround_*

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On 18/04/2019 19:23, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 4/17/19 9:28 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Wed, 27 Mar 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > Clang is pickier than GCC for the register size in asm statement. It
> > > > expects the register size to match the value size.
> > > >
> > > > The asm statement expects a 32-bit (resp. 64-bit) value on Arm32
> > > > (resp. Arm64) whereas the value is a boolean (Clang consider to be
> > > > 32-bit).
> > > >
> > > > It would be possible to impose 32-bit register for both architecture
> > > > but this require the code to use __OP32. However, it does not really
> > > > improve the assembly generated. Instead, replace switch the variable
> > > > to use register_t.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >    xen/include/asm-arm/cpuerrata.h | 2 +-
> > > >    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/cpuerrata.h
> > > > b/xen/include/asm-arm/cpuerrata.h
> > > > index 55ddfda272..88ef3ca934 100644
> > > > --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/cpuerrata.h
> > > > +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/cpuerrata.h
> > > > @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ static inline bool check_workaround_##erratum(void)
> > > > \
> > > >            return false;                                           \
> > > >        else                                                        \
> > > >        {                                                           \
> > > > -        bool ret;                                               \
> > > > +        register_t ret;                                         \
> > > >                                                                    \
> > > >            asm volatile (ALTERNATIVE("mov %0, #0",                 \
> > > >                                      "mov %0, #1",                 \
> > > This is OK. Could you please also change the return statement below?
> > > Maybe something like:
> > >
> > >     return unlikely(!!ret);
> > Why? The compiler will implicitly convert the int to bool. 0 will turn to
> > false, all the other will be true.
> >
> > We actually been actively removing !! when the type is bool (see the example
> > in get_paged_frame in common/grant_table.c).
> Really? Too bad, I loved the explicit conversions to bool. This is a
> matter of code style, not correctness, so usually I wouldn't care much.
> But I went to read MISRA-C to figure out if there are any differences
> from that point of view. From Rule 10.3, it looks like it is not
> compliant, because they say that:
>
>    bool_t bla = 0;
>
> is not MISRA-C compliant. While:
>
>    int c = 1;
>    bool_t bla = c == 0;
>
> is compliant. So, if I read this right:
>
>    return !!ret //compliant
>    return ret;  //not compliant
>
> I am not 100% sure though.
And if you read that rule the following would also be non-compliant

bool is_nonzero(int b)
{
  return b;
}

I know this example is pretty exaggerated but then does it mean the following 
code is also non-compliant?
bool is_nonzero(int b)
{
    if (b)
      return true;
    else
      return false;
}

If it is considered compliant, then it does not make sense.

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel