[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210929174146.GF22689@gate.crashing.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 12:41:46 -0500
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
will@...nel.org, paulmck@...nel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
stern@...land.harvard.edu, parri.andrea@...il.com,
boqun.feng@...il.com, npiggin@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
j.alglave@....ac.uk, luc.maranget@...ia.fr, akiyks@...il.com,
linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] LKMM: Add ctrl_dep() macro for control dependency
Hi!
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 02:28:37PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> If you need a specific instruction emitted, you need a compiler
> intrinsic or inline assembly.
Not an intrinsic. Builtins (like almost all other code) do not say
"generate this particular machine code", they say "generate code that
does <this>". That is one reason why builtins are more powerful than
inline assembler (another related reason is that they tell the compiler
exactly what behaviour is expected).
> I don't think it's possible to piggy-back this on something else.
Unless we get a description of what this does in term of language
semantics (instead of generated machine code), there is no hope, even.
Segher
Powered by blists - more mailing lists