[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <720e7c77-3f5c-83f3-6013-36b265c1ba73@c-s.fr>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 18:53:30 +0200
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: slightly improve cache helpers
Le 07/05/2019 à 17:10, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
> Hi Christophe,
>
> On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 01:31:39PM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> Cache instructions (dcbz, dcbi, dcbf and dcbst) take two registers
>> that are summed to obtain the target address. Using '%y0' argument
>> gives GCC the opportunity to use both registers instead of only one
>> with the second being forced to 0.
>
> That's not quite right. Sorry if I didn't explain it properly.
>
> "m" allows all memory. But this instruction only allows reg,reg and
> 0,reg addressing. For that you need to use constraint "Z".
But gcc help
(https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Machine-Constraints.html#Machine-Constraints)
says it is better to use 'm':
Z
Memory operand that is an indexed or indirect from a register (it
is usually better to use ‘m’ or ‘es’ in asm statements)
That's the reason why I used 'm', I thought it was equivalent.
Christophe
>
> The output modifier "%y0" just makes [reg] (i.e. simple indirect addressing)
> print as "0,reg" instead of "0(reg)" as it would by default (for just "%0").
>
>
> Segher
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists