[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200901272042.57272.baldrick@free.fr>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:42:56 +0100
From: Duncan Sands <baldrick@...e.fr>
To: llvmdev@...uiuc.edu
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Török Edwin <edwintorok@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] inline asm semantics: output constraint width smaller
than input
Hi,
> If yes then this doesnt look all that bad or invasive at first sight (if
> the put_user() workaround can be expressed in a cleaner way), but in any
> case it would be nice to hear an LLVM person's opinion about roughly when
> this is going to be solved in LLVM itself.
one thing that seems to be clear to everyone except me is... what are the
semantics supposed to be? [My understanding is that what is being discussed
is when you have an asm with a register as input and output, but with integer
types of different width for the input and output, but I saw some mention of
struct types in this thread...]. Presumably this is something obvious, but
it would be good to have someone spell it out in small words that even someone
like me can understand :)
Thanks,
Duncan.
--
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