[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOG64qP=Hn+Z6zO2pEafE4acLiGig79OCPQCAktb4bhV6DFBAg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 21:47:56 +0700
From: Alviro Iskandar Setiawan <alviro.iskandar@...weeb.org>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@...weeb.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Nugraha <richiisei@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"GNU/Weeb Mailing List" <gwml@...r.gnuweeb.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"llvm@...ts.linux.dev" <llvm@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/8] tools/nolibc: i386: Implement syscall with 6 arguments
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 8:37 PM David Laight wrote:
> dunno, 'asm' register variables are rather more horrid and
> should probably only be used (for asm statements) when there aren't
> suitable register constraints.
>
> (I'm sure there is a comment about that in the gcc docs.)
I don't find the comment that says so here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Local-Register-Variables.html
The current code looks valid to me, but I would still prefer to use
the explicit register constraints instead of always using "r"(var) if
available. No strong reason in denying that, tho. Still looks good.
-- Viro
Powered by blists - more mailing lists