[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200910171542.GL28786@gate.crashing.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 12:15:42 -0500
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc: "'Christophe Leroy'" <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
"'Linus Torvalds'" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: remove the last set_fs() in common code, and remove it for x86 and powerpc v3
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 03:31:53PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > asm volatile ("" : "+r" (eax));
> > > // So here eax must contain the value set by the "xxxxx" instructions.
> >
> > No, the register eax will contain the value of the eax variable. In the
> > asm; it might well be there before or after the asm as well, but none of
> > that is guaranteed.
>
> Perhaps not 'guaranteed', but very unlikely to be wrong.
> It doesn't give gcc much scope for not generating the desired code.
Wanna bet? :-)
Correct is correct. Anything else is not.
Segher
Powered by blists - more mailing lists