>>> On 01.07.16 at 17:38, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: > As for interleaving inside the asm statement itself, we already have > precedent for that with the HAVE_GAS_* predicates. It would make the > patch rather larger, but might end up looking cleaner. It is probably > also worth switching to named parameters to reduce the risk of getting > positional parameters out of order.
So taking just the first example I've converted: Do you think this static bool_t even_parity(uint8_t v) { asm ( "test %1,%1" #ifdef __GCC_ASM_FLAG_OUTPUTS__ : "=@ccp" (v) #else "; setp %0" : "=qm" (v) #endif : "q" (v) ); return v; } is better than the original? I'm unsure, and I'm actually inclined to think that then the abstraction alternative might look better. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel