Re: [PATCH v2] x86, boot: Fix word-size assumptions in has_eflag () inline asm

2014-01-30 Thread David Rientjes
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, David Woodhouse wrote: > Commit dd78b97367bd575918204cc89107c1479d3fc1a7 ("x86, boot: Move CPU > flags out of cpucheck") introduced ambiguous inline asm in the > has_eflag() function. In 16-bit mode want the instruction to be > 'pushfl', but we just say 'pushf' and hope the co

Re: [PATCH v2] x86, boot: Fix word-size assumptions in has_eflag () inline asm

2014-01-30 Thread David Woodhouse
On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 05:45 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > This would seem like a job for . Except that's all done on CONFIG_X86_32 which isn't useful for what we are doing here. We could, potentially, *change* so that it actually makes its choices based on whether __x86_64__ is defined? Which

Re: [PATCH v2] x86, boot: Fix word-size assumptions in has_eflag () inline asm

2014-01-30 Thread H. Peter Anvin
This would seem like a job for . On January 30, 2014 3:00:28 AM PST, David Woodhouse wrote: >Commit dd78b97367bd575918204cc89107c1479d3fc1a7 ("x86, boot: Move CPU >flags out of cpucheck") introduced ambiguous inline asm in the >has_eflag() function. In 16-bit mode want the instruction to be >'pus

[PATCH v2] x86, boot: Fix word-size assumptions in has_eflag () inline asm

2014-01-30 Thread David Woodhouse
Commit dd78b97367bd575918204cc89107c1479d3fc1a7 ("x86, boot: Move CPU flags out of cpucheck") introduced ambiguous inline asm in the has_eflag() function. In 16-bit mode want the instruction to be 'pushfl', but we just say 'pushf' and hope the compiler does what we wanted. When building with 'clan