[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdnxV_KwC-q73e3basJvo4-9FCGeMUOrZLj5xyt6Yyeh2A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 11:46:09 -0700
From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dmitry Golovin <dima@...ovin.in>,
Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: support i386 with Clang
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:09 AM Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com> wrote:
> This looks like the same issue that we just discussed for bitops.h.
> Add the "b" operand size modifier to force it to use the 8-bit
> register names (and probably also needs the "w" modifier in the 16-bit
> case).
While it does feel familiar, it is slightly different.
https://godbolt.org/z/Rme4Zg
That case was both compilers validating the inline asm, yet generating
assembly that the assembler would choke on. This case is validation
in the front end failing.
Side note: would you mind sending a review by tag for v5 of that patch
if you think it's good to go? It does fix a regression I'd prefer
didn't ship in 5.7.
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists