On Wed 20-04-16 22:45:01, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:04:05AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > The reason it breaks is because the same register can't be an > > input-output register and a separate input. However, the input side of > > the input-output is probably undefined, and so gcc may not notice. > > So Michal and I talked about this a while ago. Why do we need the '"a" > (sem)' input dependency if '"+a" (ret)' already supplies the same thing? > > There's also that "=d" (tmp) thing which we don't really need as an > output, right? > > I.e., can we simplify like this? I am for any simplification, my gcc-asm-foo is just too weak and I wanted my change to be as minimal as possible. So if you feel you can clean up this I would more than welcome that. Maybe a follow up patch would be a better approach so that we can check that the generated code hasn't changed. Thanks! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
