On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 09:19:35PM +0200, Marek Behun wrote:
On Mon, 24 May 2021 13:44:38 -0400 Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 01:09:19PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 05:58:55PM +0200, Marek Behun wrote:
On Mon, 24 May 2021 11:40:53 -0400 Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 12:56:41PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 06:00:31PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote: > On Fri, 21 May 2021 10:11:47 -0400 > Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote: > > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 01:56:29PM -0500, Adam Ford wrote: > > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 6:25 AM Marek Behún marek.behun@nic.cz > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Enable LTO for some boards that were tested by people on U-Boot > > > > Mailing List. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Marek Behún marek.behun@nic.cz > > > > Tested-by: Adam Ford aford173@gmail.com > > > > Tested-by: Pali Rohár pali@kernel.org > > > > Tested-by: Tim Harvey tharvey@gateworks.com > > > > > > Since the imx8mm beacon boards and the imx8mm venice board both show > > > promise, does it make sense to 'imply' the LTO for anything enabling > > > imx8mm? > > > Same thing for the various omap3 boards, and potentially the renesas > > > RZ/G2 boards. I know Tom went through to remove a bunch of boards > > > that were never converted to DM. Most of the boards remaining > > > boards have minimal board files and most of code is common to other > > > boards in the same platforms. > > > > > > I have an l138_lcdk that I can use to test which I expect to be > > > similar to the da850evm. > > > > As much as I am eager to move everything, quickly, over to LTO by > > default, I think the problems that we've seen thus far show it's best > > to really make it an explicit enable per board at least for the first > > release or two. Once we've hopefully gotten more boards tested and > > enabled we can see what makes sense for defaults, give a release worth > > of heads up, and then go. > > Tom, are there some other issues aside from the one failing CI scenario > (sandbox_clang)? Would you be willing to merge this if I resolved that > one fail by disabling LTO for that scenario (until I resolve it)? It > would help me not having to maintain all 30+ patches...
Yeah, CI needs to keep passing, so if we need to disable sandbox+clang+lto for now, OK.
Ah, I see the problem now. I've worked out a fix after looking at the Linux kernel a bit and I'll post something for us and upstream dtc as well.
What do you mean? The problem is in dtc? I see 2 problems:
- one with DM test
- one with stack protector test
I don't have a full answer about the stack protector test just yet, but it almost seems like it's too simple and maybe something is happening with it being optimized to not a problem?
Yeah, so clang with LTO optimizes away that memset call, and so the test passes. I'll do something to make sure the array is used so it won't be optimized away.
I am unable to make the compiler to protect the stack of that function even with GCC on my local machine. It seems that at least on my gentoo with gcc-10.2, when compiling with -ffreestanding, the call to __stack_chk_fail is not made at all.
I even started reading sources of gcc on thursday because of this, but it didn't lead anywhere...
When you compile sandbox_defconfig with gcc, does the test pass on your local machine?
It passes here with gcc-7.5 as well as gcc-9.2.0 in CI. When I moved to a gcc-11 snapshot in CI, it was also passing there before, so I'm not sure what's going on in your setup. But as part of coming up with the patch I sent to fix the test, I ran it manually and saw the expected failure message.