[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5547D999.9040005@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 13:42:01 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Richard Henderson <rth@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@...hat.com>,
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"gcc@....gnu.org" <gcc@....gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Design for flag bit outputs from asms
On 05/04/2015 01:35 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:14 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>>
>> I would argue that for x86 what you actually want is to model the
>> *conditions* that are available on the flags, not the flags themselves.
>
> Yes. Otherwise it would be a nightmare to try to describe simple
> conditions like "le", which a rather complicated combination of three
> of the actual flag bits:
>
> ((SF ^^ OF) || ZF) = 1
>
> which would just be ridiculously painful for (a) the user to describe
> and (b) fior the compiler to recognize once described.
>
> Now, I do admit that most of the cases where you'd use inline asm with
> condition codes would probably fall into just simple "test ZF or CF".
> But I could certainly imagine other cases.
>
Yes, although once again I'm more than happy to let gcc do the boolean
optimizations if it already has logic to do so (which it might have/want
for its own reasons.)
-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