The only thing that would avoid this is to either tell the compiler to
never put esi/edi in memory (which I think is not possibly across
different versions of gcc) or to always generate a single asm section
for all the different cases.
Use __asm__ ("%esi") and __asm__ ("%edi"). It is not guarante
On Tuesday 05 April 2005 19:34, Christophe Saout wrote:
> the new i386 memcpy macro is a ticking timebomb.
>
> I've been debugging a new mISDN crash, just to find out that a memcpy
> was not inlined correctly.
>
> Andrew, you should drop the fix-i386-memcpy.patch (or have it fixed).
Updated patc
On Wednesday 06 April 2005 16:18, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
>
> Attached is inline ix86 memcpy() plus test code that tests its
> corner-cases. The in-line code makes no jumps, but uses longword
> copies, word copies and any spare byte copy. It works at all
> offsets, doesn't require alignment but
Attached is inline ix86 memcpy() plus test code that tests its
corner-cases. The in-line code makes no jumps, but uses longword
copies, word copies and any spare byte copy. It works at all
offsets, doesn't require alignment but would work fastest if
both source and destination were longword aligned
I'm having a little difficulty understanding what this is for. Is it
that gcc's builtin memcpy expander generates bad code, or that older
versions of gcc generate bad code, or what? gcc generates too much
code?
Andrew.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Original Message
>From: Dave Korn
>Sent: 06 April 2005 12:53
> Original Message
>> From: Dave Korn
>> Sent: 06 April 2005 12:13
>
>> Original Message
>>> From: Dave Korn
>>> Sent: 06 April 2005 12:06
>>
>>
>> Me and my big mouth.
>>
>> OK, that one does work.
>>
>>
Am Mittwoch, den 06.04.2005, 13:14 +0300 schrieb Denis Vlasenko:
> Oh shit. I was trying to be too clever. I still run with this patch,
> so it must be happening very rarely.
Yes, that's right, it happened with code that's not in the mainline tree
but could have happened anywhere.
> Does this on
Original Message
>From: Dave Korn
>Sent: 06 April 2005 12:13
> Original Message
>> From: Dave Korn
>> Sent: 06 April 2005 12:06
>
>
> Me and my big mouth.
>
> OK, that one does work.
>
> Sorry for the outburst.
>
well, actually, maybe it doesn't after all.
Wha
Original Message
>From: Dave Korn
>Sent: 06 April 2005 12:06
Me and my big mouth.
OK, that one does work.
Sorry for the outburst.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
th
Original Message
>From: Denis Vlasenko
>Sent: 06 April 2005 11:14
Is this someone's idea of an April Fool's joke? Because if it is, I've
suffered a serious sense-of-humour failure.
> Oh shit. I was trying to be too clever. I still run with this patch,
> so it must be happening very rar
On Tuesday 05 April 2005 19:34, Christophe Saout wrote:
> Hi Denis,
>
> the new i386 memcpy macro is a ticking timebomb.
>
> I've been debugging a new mISDN crash, just to find out that a memcpy
> was not inlined correctly.
>
> Andrew, you should drop the fix-i386-memcpy.patch (or have it fixed)
11 matches
Mail list logo
