[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071022095306.GA43910@muc.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:53:06 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <ak@....de>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/7] Immediate Values - i386 Optimization
> - Either I use a "r" constraint and let gcc produce the instructions,
> that I need to assume to have correct size so I can align their
> immediate values (therefore, taking the offset from the end of the
> instruction will not help). Here, if gas changes its behavior
> dramatically for a given immediate value size, it will break.
I wouldn't expect it to do that, but you could perhaps add a self
test somewhere to check for it.
>
> - Second choice is to stick to a particular register, choosing the one
> with the less side-effect, and encoding the instruction ourselves. I
> start to think that this second solution might be safer, even though
> we wouldn't let the compiler select the register which has the less
> impact by itself.
Such effects caused occassional bugs in the alternative() implementation
which requires a maximum size for the replacement.
But in this case it should be safe enough to trust gas stability.
-Andi
-
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