On 12/17/21 14:47, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 17/12/2021 11.31, Nico Boehr wrote:We clobber r0 and thus should let the compiler know we're doing so. Because we change from basic to extended ASM, we need to change the register names, as %r0 will be interpreted as a token in the assembler template. For consistency, we align with the common style in kvm-unit-tests which is just 0. Signed-off-by: Nico Boehr <nrb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- s390x/diag288.c | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/s390x/diag288.c b/s390x/diag288.c index 072c04a5cbd6..da7b06c365bf 100644 --- a/s390x/diag288.c +++ b/s390x/diag288.c @@ -94,11 +94,12 @@ static void test_bite(void) /* Arm watchdog */ lc->restart_new_psw.mask = extract_psw_mask() & ~PSW_MASK_EXT; diag288(CODE_INIT, 15, ACTION_RESTART); - asm volatile(" larl %r0, 1f\n" - " stg %r0, 424\n" + asm volatile(" larl 0, 1f\n" + " stg 0, 424\n"Would it work to use %%r0 instead?
Yes, but I told him that looks weird, so that one is on me. @claudio @thomas What's your preferred way of dealing with this?
"0: nop\n" " j 0b\n" - "1:"); + "1:" + : : : "0"); report_pass("restart"); }Anyway: Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx>
