[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5547DD29.2020805@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 13:57:13 -0700
From: Richard Henderson <rth@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.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 01:45 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Richard Henderson <rth@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> A fair point. Though honestly, I was hoping that this feature would mostly be
>> used for conditions that are "weird" -- that is, not normally describable by
>> arithmetic at all. Otherwise, why are you using inline asm for it?
>
> I could easily imagine using some of the combinations for atomic operations.
>
> For example, doing a "lock decl", and wanting to see if the result is
> negative or zero. Sure, it would be possible to set *two* booleans (ZF
> and SF), but there's a contiional for "BE"..
Sure.
I'd be more inclined to support these compound conditionals directly, rather
than try to get the compiler to recognize them after the fact.
Indeed, I believe we have a near complete set of them in the x86 backend
already. It'd just be a matter of selecting the spellings for the constraints.
r~
--
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