[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090118164246.GA28423@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:42:46 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/17] x86-64: Use absolute displacements for per-cpu
accesses.
* Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > Hello, Brian.
> >
> > Brian Gerst wrote:
> > > Accessing memory through %gs should not use rip-relative addressing.
> > > Adding a P prefix for the argument tells gcc to not add (%rip) to
> > > the memory references.
> >
> > Nice catch. I dind't know about the P prefix thing. It also is used
> > in other places too. Hmmm... I can't find anything about the P
> > argument prefix in the gcc info page (4.3). Any ideas where I can
> > find some information about it? It's a bit weird that it's not a
> > constraint prefix but an argument one.
>
> The only place I could confirm that it works is in the gcc source
> itself, and even there it's not well documented.
does %P support go back as far as gcc 3.2 (the earliest GCC we still
support)?
Ingo
--
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