[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A218761.5080607@zytor.com>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 12:22:09 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@...glemail.com>,
Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>, greg@...ah.com,
mingo@...e.hu, norsk5@...oo.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
mchehab@...hat.com, aris@...hat.com, edt@....ca,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, randy.dunlap@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] amd64_edac: misc fixes
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 30 May 2009 10:19:54 +0200 Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@...glemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Also, I've been thinking about how the old(er)
>> toolchain problem can be addressed and one fairly doable thing would be
>> if I'd query the gas version in the kernel Makefile and define popcnt
>> dependent on it and for older assemblers simply slap in the opcode and
>> fixate the operands in an inline assembly so that it works.
>
> We've done that before. BUG() is one case (for other reasons), I think.
>
> But if we have the code in there which uese the literal opcode, there's
> no need to query gas or to add the conditional.
>
> Is popcnt supported on all CPUs?
Obviously not, since it's a relatively new opcode. However, it is
supported by both Intel and AMD with the opcode F3 0F B8 /r.
The "/r" is the real problem ... it means one can't just mimic it with
hard-coding .byte directives without fixing the arguments (which means a
performance hit.) Furthermore, the 0F B8 opcode is JMPE, which doesn't
take the same arguments either.
We have these kinds of toolchain issues regularly.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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