According to GCC manual of inline assembler instruction, it says if your instruction
changes condition code register(on X86, it's cpu flag register, and a simple addl
instruction can affect it), you'd put cc there, I have reviewed some source header
files of bus management, they all have cc constraint, but others not, and some
lines lost __volatile__ keyword, GCC can feel free to optimize them and re-order
or delete these lines when it thinks this is a right decision, this could be dangerous
when high optimizing option is turned on.
--
David Xu
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Baldwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "David Xu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 3:38 AM
Subject: RE: add some constraints in cpufunc.h
>
> On 21-Nov-01 David Xu wrote:
> > 4.4-stable, file sys/i386/include/cpufunc.h,
> >
> > --- cpufunc.h.orig Wed Nov 21 13:35:36 2001
> > +++ cpufunc.h Wed Nov 21 15:00:12 2001
> > @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@
> > {
> > u_int result;
> >
> > - __asm __volatile("bsfl %0,%0" : "=r" (result) : "0" (mask));
> > + __asm __volatile("bsfl %0,%0" : "=r" (result) : "0" (mask) : "cc");
> > return (result);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -81,7 +81,7 @@
> > {
> > u_int result;
> >
> > - __asm __volatile("bsrl %0,%0" : "=r" (result) : "0" (mask));
> > + __asm __volatile("bsrl %0,%0" : "=r" (result) : "0" (mask) : "cc");
> > return (result);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -305,7 +305,7 @@
> > u_int result;
> >
> > __asm __volatile("xorl %0,%0; xchgl %1,%0"
> > - : "=&r" (result) : "m" (*addr));
> > + : "=&r" (result) : "m" (*addr) : "cc");
> > return (result);
> > }
> >
>
> Have you had actual bugs as a result of "cc" not being in the constraints?
>
> If so, there's a _lot_ more places that need this. All the atomic ops, for
> example.
>
> --
>
> John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
> "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
