[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47FD4442.3050000@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:33:38 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
CC: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Andi Kleen <ak@....de>,
Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, akpm@...l.org
Subject: Re: [patch 13/17] Immediate Values - x86 Optimization
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * H. Peter Anvin (hpa@...or.com) wrote:
>> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>> Ok, so the most flexible solution that I see, that should fit for both
>>> x86 and x86_64 would be :
>>> 1 byte : "=q" : "a", "b", "c", or "d" register for the i386. For
>>> x86-64 it is equivalent to "r" class (for 8-bit
>>> instructions that do not use upper halves).
>>> 2, 4, 8 bytes : "=r" : A register operand is allowed provided that it is
>>> in a
>>> general register.
>> Any reason to keep carrying this completely misleading comment chunk still?
>>
>> -hpa
>
> This comment explains why I use the =q constraint for the 1 bytes
> immediate value. It makes sure we use an instruction with 1-byte opcode,
> without REX.R prefix, on x86_64.
No, it doesn't. That would be "=Q".
-hpa
--
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