On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:49:36PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 11/26/2012 03:48 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >>
> >> Gleb, Marcelo: are you going to apply this or would you prefer I took it
> >> in x86/urgent?
> >>
> >>-hpa
> >
> > Feel free to merge it through x86/urgent.
> >
>
> I
On 11/26/2012 03:48 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>
>> Gleb, Marcelo: are you going to apply this or would you prefer I took it
>> in x86/urgent?
>>
>> -hpa
>
> Feel free to merge it through x86/urgent.
>
I presume that's an Acked-by?
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 02:48:50PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 11/25/2012 11:22 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Il 21/11/2012 23:41, H. Peter Anvin ha scritto:
> >> From: "H. Peter Anvin"
> >>
> >> In __emulate_1op_rax_rdx, we use "+a" and "+d" which are input/output
> >> constraints, and
On 11/25/2012 11:22 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 21/11/2012 23:41, H. Peter Anvin ha scritto:
>> From: "H. Peter Anvin"
>>
>> In __emulate_1op_rax_rdx, we use "+a" and "+d" which are input/output
>> constraints, and *then* use "a" and "d" as input constraints. This is
>> incorrect, but happens
On 11/25/2012 11:22 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 21/11/2012 23:41, H. Peter Anvin ha scritto:
From: H. Peter Anvin h...@linux.intel.com
In __emulate_1op_rax_rdx, we use +a and +d which are input/output
constraints, and *then* use a and d as input constraints. This is
incorrect, but happens
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 02:48:50PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 11/25/2012 11:22 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 21/11/2012 23:41, H. Peter Anvin ha scritto:
From: H. Peter Anvin h...@linux.intel.com
In __emulate_1op_rax_rdx, we use +a and +d which are input/output
constraints, and
On 11/26/2012 03:48 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Gleb, Marcelo: are you going to apply this or would you prefer I took it
in x86/urgent?
-hpa
Feel free to merge it through x86/urgent.
I presume that's an Acked-by?
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:49:36PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 11/26/2012 03:48 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Gleb, Marcelo: are you going to apply this or would you prefer I took it
in x86/urgent?
-hpa
Feel free to merge it through x86/urgent.
I presume that's an
Il 21/11/2012 23:41, H. Peter Anvin ha scritto:
> From: "H. Peter Anvin"
>
> In __emulate_1op_rax_rdx, we use "+a" and "+d" which are input/output
> constraints, and *then* use "a" and "d" as input constraints. This is
> incorrect, but happens to work on some versions of gcc.
>
> However, it
Il 21/11/2012 23:41, H. Peter Anvin ha scritto:
From: H. Peter Anvin h...@linux.intel.com
In __emulate_1op_rax_rdx, we use +a and +d which are input/output
constraints, and *then* use a and d as input constraints. This is
incorrect, but happens to work on some versions of gcc.
However,
From: "H. Peter Anvin"
In __emulate_1op_rax_rdx, we use "+a" and "+d" which are input/output
constraints, and *then* use "a" and "d" as input constraints. This is
incorrect, but happens to work on some versions of gcc.
However, it breaks gcc with -O0 and icc, and may break on future
versions
From: H. Peter Anvin h...@linux.intel.com
In __emulate_1op_rax_rdx, we use +a and +d which are input/output
constraints, and *then* use a and d as input constraints. This is
incorrect, but happens to work on some versions of gcc.
However, it breaks gcc with -O0 and icc, and may break on future
12 matches
Mail list logo
