[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070723163649.GL1758@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:36:49 +0200
From: Jan Hubicka <jh@...e.cz>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc: Satyam Sharma <ssatyam@....iitk.ac.in>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, jh@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] i386: bitops: Rectify bogus "Ir" constraints
>
> > Whoa, thanks for explaining that to me -- I didn't know, obviously. I had
> > just written a test program that used "Ir" with an automatic variable
> > defined in the inline function (as is the case with these bitops) and
> > observed that even when I gave > 32 values, it would still work -- hence
> > my conclusion.
> >
> > However, the patch still stands, does it not? [ I will modify the
> > changelog, obviously. ] The thing is that we don't want to limit
> > @nr to <= 31 in the first place, or am I wrong again? :-)
>
> These bit operations only allow 8 bit immediates, so 0..255 would
> be correct. N might work from the 4.1 docs, but I don't know if it works
> in all old supported gccs (3.2+)
'N' constraint was there pretty much forever, originally intended for
in/out operands. It is in 2.95 docs
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-2.95.3/gcc_16.html#SEC175
Honza
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists