[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090118173820.GA14356@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:38:20 +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.
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * 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)?
update: Brian pointed it out off-list that switch_to() already uses %P, so
we already rely on it.
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