From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:09:57 +0100 From: Will Deacon To: Bastian Hecht Subject: Re: Possible regression in arm/io.h Message-ID: <20121024130957.GB7339@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20121024105223.GC23775@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Artem Bityutskiy List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:34:18PM +0100, Bastian Hecht wrote: > 2012/10/24 Will Deacon : > > It sounds like we need to: > > > > (a) Understand what has changed in GCC to cause this error to start > > cropping up. > > > > (b) Have a look at the impact of using only "Q" on the generated > > code (especially register usage for the address). > > > > Uff... I've just started to write ARM assembly and have no practical > experience with the inner workings of real world compilers. So this > time I'm afraid I was just good enough to report this. It sounds > interesting to hunt it, but would take ages for me at this point. Ok, I'll have a look at the impact of moving exclusively to "Q" when I get a chance. Which toolchain are you using? Will