From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Kyle Moffett <kyle@moffetthome.net>
Cc: "Duncan Sands" <baldrick@free.fr>,
llvmdev@cs.uiuc.edu, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>,
"Török Edwin" <edwintorok@gmail.com>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Linux Kernel" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] inline asm semantics: output constraint width smaller than input
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:29:22 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <498095F2.4060502@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f73f7ab80901280528m6a4f123axbaff9ec284bebe32@mail.gmail.com>
Kyle Moffett wrote:
>
> Even in the 64-bit-integer on 32-bit-CPU case, you still end up with
> the lower 32-bits in a standard integer GPR, and it's trivial to just
> ignore the "upper" register. You also would not need to do any kind
> of bit-shift, so long as your inline assembly initializes both GPRs
> and puts the halves of the result where they belong.
>
In this case, we're talking about what happens when the assembly takes a
64-bit input operand in the same register as a 32-bit output operand
(with a "0" constraint.) Is the output operand the same register number
as the high register or the low register? On an LE machine the answer
is trivial and obvious -- the low register; on a BE machine both
interpretations are possible (I actually suspect gcc will assign the
high register, just based on how gcc internals work in this case.)
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-28 17:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-23 17:57 inline asm semantics: output constraint width smaller than input Török Edwin
2009-01-23 18:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-23 18:21 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-01-23 18:27 ` Török Edwin
2009-01-23 18:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-23 18:52 ` Török Edwin
2009-01-23 20:42 ` Török Edwin
2009-01-24 16:23 ` Török Edwin
2009-01-24 17:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-24 18:57 ` Török Edwin
2009-01-24 21:25 ` [LLVMdev] " Mike Stump
2009-01-24 19:23 ` Chris Lattner
2009-01-24 21:10 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-01-27 19:42 ` Duncan Sands
2009-01-27 21:25 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-01-28 1:45 ` Kyle Moffett
2009-01-28 1:56 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-01-28 13:28 ` Kyle Moffett
2009-01-28 17:29 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2009-01-28 19:27 ` Kyle Moffett
2009-01-28 20:59 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-01-24 20:07 ` Andreas Schwab
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=498095F2.4060502@zytor.com \
--to=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=baldrick@free.fr \
--cc=edwintorok@gmail.com \
--cc=kyle@moffetthome.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=llvmdev@cs.uiuc.edu \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.