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 12:59:41 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4980C73D.9010809@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f73f7ab80901281127t191c9c97nba99d859224e14bd@mail.gmail.com>
Kyle Moffett wrote:
>
> On a BE 32-bit machine, the "output register" technically ought to be
> "64-bit" anyways, since it's constrained to be the same as the 64-bit
> "input register". That means that you ought to make sure to set
> *both* output registers appropriately, one of them being 0 and the
> other being the 32-bit number. I think that's the only answer that
> actually makes any sense from a holistic code-generation sense. So it
> seems we are in violent agreement :-D.
>
No.
This is wrong on two accounts.
First of all, THERE ARE NO "TWO OUTPUT REGISTERS". Period. There is
only one. The question is: which of the two *input* registers does it
correspond to?
Second of all, "making sense from a holistic code-generation sense"
doesn't apply here. This is about mimicing a gcc construct, regardless
of which amount of sense it makes. Therefore, the only thing that
actually makes sense is to mimic gcc behavior, no matter how stupid it
happens to be.
-hpa
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-28 21:01 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
2009-01-28 19:27 ` Kyle Moffett
2009-01-28 20:59 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
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=4980C73D.9010809@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox