On 06/18/2010 02:35 AM, Christopher Li wrote:
> 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.
Where can I find it?
> It just hit me, is "asm volatile goto" or "asm goto volatile" valid?
> If so, the asm goto code needs some change.
Holy crap, in docco, there is nothing like that, but I checked gcc
parser sources to be sure, and there indeed is:
asm type-qualifier[opt] ( asm-argument ) ;
asm type-qualifier[opt] goto ( asm-goto-argument ) ;
So yes, asm volatile goto is valid. Would you take care of that?
--
js
suse labs
--
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
