[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707232338260.22796@cselinux1.cse.iitk.ac.in>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:44:52 +0530 (IST)
From: Satyam Sharma <ssatyam@....iitk.ac.in>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] i386: bitops: Rectify bogus "Ir" constraints
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> >
> > * The "I" constraint modifier is applicable only to immediate-value operands,
> > and combining it with "r" is bogus.
>
> This is wrong too.
>
> The whole point of a "Ir" modifier is to say that the instruction takes
> *either* an "I" or an "r".
Yup, sorry about this one, Andi pointed this out earlier. But the "I"
must still go I think, for the third reason in that changelog -- it
unnecessarily limits the bit offset to 0..31, but (at least from the
comment up front in that file) we do allow arbitrarily large @nr (upto
255, of course, these instructions won't take anything greater than that).
> Andrew - the ones I've looked at were all wrong. Please don't take this
> series.
I think I'll rescind the series anyway, a lot of patches turned out to
be wrong -- some due to mis-reading / incorrect gcc docs, others due to
other reasons ... this was just something I did thinking of as a cleanup
anyway, so I don't intend to push or correct this or anything.
Satyam
-
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