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

[Satyam Sharma]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> >> * The "I" constraint modifier is applicable only to immediate-value operands,
> >>   and combining it with "r" is bogus.
> > 
> > This is wrong too.
> > 
> > The whole point of a "Ir" modifier is to say that the instruction takes 
> > *either* an "I" or an "r".
> > 
> > Andrew - the ones I've looked at were all wrong. Please don't take this 
> > series.
> > 
> 
> Incidentally, I just noticed the x86-64 bitops have "dIr" as their
> constraint set.  "d" would normally be redundant with "r", and as far as
> I know, gcc doesn't prefer one over the other without having "?" or "!"
> as part of the constraint, so is is "d" a stray or is there some meaning
> behind it?


Yup, I had noticed that myself. We would need to use "J" if we want
to limit the offsets to 0..63, but "d" sounds weird / stray indeed,
unless there's yet another undocumented/wrongly-documented mystery
behind this one too ... (I'd like to know even if that's the case,
obviously).

Satyam
-
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/