On 9/30/2013 5:45 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 09:13:15PM +0100, Chris Metcalf wrote: >> On 9/26/2013 1:57 PM, Will Deacon wrote: >>> Hi Chris, >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 06:24:53PM +0100, Chris Metcalf wrote: >>>> [...] >>>> +static inline unsigned long __my_cpu_offset(void) >>>> +{ >>>> + unsigned long tp; >>>> + register unsigned long *sp asm("sp"); >>>> + asm("move %0, tp" : "=r" (tp) : "m" (*sp)); >>>> + return tp; >>>> +} >>> Hehe, nice to see this hack working out for you too. One thing to check is >>> whether you have any funky addressing modes (things like writeback or >>> post-increment), since the "m" constraint can bite you if you don't actually >>> use it in the asm. >> Well, we do have post increments, though I don't see why this is a problem >> here. >> We define a target specific constraint "U" that excludes post-increments, but >> again I don't see why "m" would cause trouble here. What was your >> experience? > GCC assumes that each "m" operand is used *exactly once* in the asm, so if > it decided to generate a post-increment/writeback addressing mode, you can > end up with pointers off by a word if you didn't make use of the constraint > in the code. You can try using "o", but GCC sometimes decides that's > impossible during reload, so we end up combining it with the (undocumented, > ARM-specific) "Q" constraint which is simply a [rN] addressing mode.
OK, makes sense. I've changed the code to use a "U" constraint (pushed up to the linux-tile tree). Thanks! -- Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp. http://www.tilera.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/