On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Christopher Li <sparse@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> static inline int __static_cpu_has(unsigned char bit)
>> {
>> asm goto("1: jmp %l[t_no]\n"
>> "2:\n"
>> ".section .altinstructions,\"a\"\n"
>> "\n"
>> "1b\n"
>> "0\n" /* no replacement */
>> " .byte %P0\n" /* feature bit */
>> " .byte 2b - 1b\n" /* source len */
>> " .byte 0\n" /* replacement len */
>> " .byte 0xff + 0 - (2b-1b)\n" /* padding */
>> ".previous\n"
>> : : "i" (bit) : : t_no, ble);
>> return 1;
>> t_no:
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
Hi, I update the chrisl branch with your change and the test case.
Please verify it. I hope I did not do some thing stupid there.
It just hit me, is "asm volatile goto" or "asm goto volatile" valid?
If so, the asm goto code needs some change.
Chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
