Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulni...@google.com> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 3:11 PM Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
>> > + *
>> > + * Clang sometimes fails to kill the reference to the dummy variable, so
>> > + * provide an actual copy.
>>
>> Can that compiler be fixed instead?
>
> I don't think so. The logic in the compiler whether to emit an
Forget that I asked. Heat induced brain damaged.
> I'd much rather remove all of __force_order.
Right.
> Not sure about the comment in arch/x86/include/asm/special_insns.h
> either; smells fishy like a bug with a compiler from a long time ago.
> It looks like it was introduced in:
> commit d3ca901f94b32 ("x86: unify paravirt parts of system.h")
> Lore has this thread:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/4755a809.4050...@qumranet.com/
> Patch 4:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/11967844071346-git-send-email-gco...@redhat.com/
> It seems like there was a discussion about %cr8, but no one asked
> "what's going on here with __force_order, is that right?"
Correct and the changelog is uselss in this regard.
> Quick boot test of the below works for me, though I should probably
> test hosting a virtualized guest since d3ca901f94b32 refers to
> paravirt. Thoughts?
Let me ask (hopefully) useful questions this time:
Is a compiler allowed to reorder two 'asm volatile()'?
Are there compilers (gcc >= 4.9 or other supported ones) which do that?
Thanks,
tglx
