On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote: > >> * The "I" constraint modifier is applicable only to immediate-value > >> operands, > >> and combining it with "r" is bogus. > > > > This is wrong too. > > > > The whole point of a "Ir" modifier is to say that the instruction takes > > *either* an "I" or an "r". > > > > Andrew - the ones I've looked at were all wrong. Please don't take this > > series. > > > > Incidentally, I just noticed the x86-64 bitops have "dIr" as their > constraint set. "d" would normally be redundant with "r", and as far as > I know, gcc doesn't prefer one over the other without having "?" or "!" > as part of the constraint, so is is "d" a stray or is there some meaning > behind it?
Yup, I had noticed that myself. We would need to use "J" if we want to limit the offsets to 0..63, but "d" sounds weird / stray indeed, unless there's yet another undocumented/wrongly-documented mystery behind this one too ... (I'd like to know even if that's the case, obviously). Satyam - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
