On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 07:40:42AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Le 18/08/2019 à 14:01, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
> >On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 09:04:42AM +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> >>Unlike BUG_ON(x), WARN_ON(x) uses !!(x) as the trigger
> >>of the t(d/w)nei instruction instead of using d
Le 18/08/2019 à 14:01, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 09:04:42AM +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
Unlike BUG_ON(x), WARN_ON(x) uses !!(x) as the trigger
of the t(d/w)nei instruction instead of using directly the
value of x.
This leads to GCC adding unnecessary pair of add
On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 09:04:42AM +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Unlike BUG_ON(x), WARN_ON(x) uses !!(x) as the trigger
> of the t(d/w)nei instruction instead of using directly the
> value of x.
>
> This leads to GCC adding unnecessary pair of addic/subfe.
And it has to, it is passed as an "r"
Unlike BUG_ON(x), WARN_ON(x) uses !!(x) as the trigger
of the t(d/w)nei instruction instead of using directly the
value of x.
This leads to GCC adding unnecessary pair of addic/subfe. This was
revealed after adding a WARN_ON() on top of clear_page() in order
to detect misaligned destination:
@@ -
4 matches
Mail list logo