[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 08:35:36 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Richard Biener <rguenther@...e.de>, Michael Matz <matz@...e.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, gcc@....gnu.org,
Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>,
Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Extend inline asm syntax with size spec
* Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 11:07:46AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Oct 2018, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 03:53:26PM +0000, Michael Matz wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 7 Oct 2018, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 11:18:06AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > > > > Now, Richard suggested doing something like:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) inline asm ("...")
> > > > >
> > > > > What would the semantics of this be?
> > > >
> > > > The size of the inline asm wouldn't be counted towards the inliner size
> > > > limits (or be counted as "1").
> > >
> > > That sounds like a good option.
> >
> > Yes, I also like it for simplicity. It also avoids the requirement
> > of translating the number (in bytes?) given by the user to
> > "number of GIMPLE instructions" as needed by the inliner.
>
> This patch implements this, for C only so far. And the syntax is
> "asm inline", which is more in line with other syntax.
>
> How does this look?
Cool, thanks for implementing this!
In the kernel we'd likely wrap this in some "asm_inline()" type of construct to be
compatible with older toolchains and other compilers.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists