Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings

From: Josh Poimboeuf
Date: Wed Mar 01 2017 - 12:21:33 EST


On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:27:29PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 10:45:03AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> >> Actually, something must have changed in gcc since last month, I also
> >> just got a report in another file:
> >>
> >> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-img-scb.o: warning: objtool: img_i2c_probe()
> >> falls through to next function img_i2c_read_fifo()
> >
> > This one looks like it could be related to some recent objtool changes
> > which affect how it interprets 'ud2'. Which commit were you testing
> > with? Can you provide the .config file, and the object file if it's not
> > too big?
>
> This is with my randconfig test series on top of latest linux-next.
> I see it with the latest gcc-7.0.1 snapshot as well as an earlier gcc-7.0.0
> build (20161201), but not with gcc-6.3.1

I wonder if this is another gcc bug. gcc inserted two ud2 instructions
in img_i2c_probe() for no apparent reason. Here's one of them:

5c3: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 5c8 <img_i2c_probe+0x298>
5c4: R_X86_64_PC32 dev_warn-0x4
5c8: 8b 05 00 00 00 00 mov 0x0(%rip),%eax # 5ce <img_i2c_probe+0x29e>
5ca: R_X86_64_PC32 .data+0xec
5ce: 89 83 70 06 00 00 mov %eax,0x670(%rbx)
5d4: 0f 0b ud2

Which corresponds to the following code block:

if (i2c->bitrate > timings[ARRAY_SIZE(timings) - 1].max_bitrate) {
dev_warn(i2c->adap.dev.parent,
"requested bitrate (%u) is higher than the max bitrate supported (%u)\n",
i2c->bitrate,
timings[ARRAY_SIZE(timings) - 1].max_bitrate);
timing = timings[ARRAY_SIZE(timings) - 1];
i2c->bitrate = timing.max_bitrate;
}

I see no apparent reason for the ud2.

Can you rebuild the object with CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO and use addr2line to
see what code lines are associated with the ud2's?

--
Josh