Re: [PATCH 2/8] i386: bitops: Rectify bogus "Ir" constraints

[Jan Hubicka]

> 
> > Whoa, thanks for explaining that to me -- I didn't know, obviously. I had
> > just written a test program that used "Ir" with an automatic variable
> > defined in the inline function (as is the case with these bitops) and
> > observed that even when I gave > 32 values, it would still work -- hence
> > my conclusion.
> > 
> > However, the patch still stands, does it not? [ I will modify the
> > changelog, obviously. ] The thing is that we don't want to limit
> > @nr to <= 31 in the first place, or am I wrong again? :-)
> 
> These bit operations only allow 8 bit immediates, so 0..255 would
> be correct. N might work from the 4.1 docs, but I don't know if it works 
> in all old supported gccs (3.2+)

'N' constraint was there pretty much forever, originally intended for
in/out operands.  It is in 2.95 docs
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-2.95.3/gcc_16.html#SEC175

Honza
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/