Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: ffs() (was: [Linux-NTFS-Dev] SOLVED - Re: PROBLEM: compiling NTFS write support) | From | Anton Altaparmakov <> | Date | Wed, 12 May 2004 14:34:15 +0100 |
| |
On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 14:29, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 13:58, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote: > > On Wed, 12 May 2004, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > > > On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 12:56, andrea.fracasso@infoware-srl.com wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 11:14, andrea.fracasso@infoware-srl.com wrote: > > > > >> Hi, I have found a problem compiling te source of kernel 2.6.6, if I > > > > >> enable NTFS write support when i run "make" i get this error: > > > > >> > > > > >> .... > > > > >> CC fs/ntfs/inode.o > > > > >> CC fs/ntfs/logfile.o > > > > >> {standard input}: Assembler messages: > > > > >> {standard input}:683: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `bsf' > > > > >> make[2]: *** [fs/ntfs/logfile.o] Error 1 > > > > >> make[1]: *** [fs/ntfs] Error 2 > > > > >> make: *** [fs] Error 2 > > > > >> > > > > >> my kernel version is: > > > > >> Linux version 2.6.5-AS1500 (root@ntb-gozzolox) (gcc version 3.3.2 > > > > >> 20031022 > > > > >> (Red Hat Linux 3.3.2-1)) #3 Thu Apr 15 10:13:11 CEST 2004 > > > > > > > > The binutils ver is: > > > > binutils-2.14.90.0.6-4 > > > > > > This happens because gcc (wrongly!) optimizes a variable into a constant > > > and then ffs() fails to assemble because the bsfl instruction is only > > > allowed with memory operands and not constants. > > > > IMHO this should be worked around (fixed) in the inlined __asm__ ffs. Does > > it happen only on Opteron or on other platforms as well? > > Seems to be opteron only so far. Obviously gcc on the opteron must be > 'better' at optimizing... I imagine the below would work: > > --- bklinux-2.6/include/asm-x86_64/bitops.h.old 2004-05-12 > 14:22:16.370662976 +0100 > +++ bklinux-2.6/include/asm-x86_64/bitops.h 2004-05-12 > 14:23:17.800324248 +0100 > @@ -452,7 +452,7 @@ static inline int sched_find_first_bit(c > * the libc and compiler builtin ffs routines, therefore > * differs in spirit from the above ffz (man ffs). > */ > -static __inline__ int ffs(int x) > +static __inline__ int mem_ffs(int x) > { > int r; > > @@ -462,6 +462,8 @@ static __inline__ int ffs(int x) > return r+1; > } > > +#define ffs(x) (__builtin_constant_p(x) ? generic_ffs(x) : mem_ffs(x)) > + > /** > * hweightN - returns the hamming weight of a N-bit word > * @x: the word to weigh > > But what is to say that the next gcc version in i386 won't have the same > problem? We would really need to do this on all arch who use an > instruction which is not capable of working on constants. asm-i386 > would be a prime candidate. > > Andrea, could you test the above change instead of the one to logfile.c > as well and let us know if it worked?
Actually don't worry. As was just pointed out to me the fault is actually with the ffs() assembler on x86_64... I will send a patch for that to Linus/Andrew/Andi in a second.
Best regards,
Anton -- Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @) Unix Support, Computing Service, University of Cambridge, CB2 3QH, UK Linux NTFS maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.freenode.net WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |