On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 05:04:46PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 16:08 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 11:56 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > > static inline void sync(void)
> > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h
> > > b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h
> > > index b8f152e..288d8b2 100644
> > > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h
> > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h
> > > @@ -19,14 +19,14 @@ static __inline__ int atomic_read(const atomic_t *v)
> > > {
> > > int t;
> > >
> > > - __asm__ __volatile__("lwz%U1%X1 %0,%1" : "=r"(t) : "m"(v->counter));
> > > + __asm__ __volatile__("lwz%U1%X1 %0,%1" : "=r"(t) : "m<>"(v->counter));
> > >
> > > return t;
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > This gives me:
> >
> > /home/benh/linux-powerpc-test/arch/powerpc/kernel/time.c: In function
> > ‘timer_interrupt’:
> > /home/benh/linux-powerpc-test/arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h:22: error:
> > ‘asm’ operand has impossible constraints
> > make[2]: *** [arch/powerpc/kernel/time.o] Error 1
> >
> > $ gcc --version
> > gcc (Debian 4.4.4-1) 4.4.4
>
> Ping :-)
>
> Do that mean that 4.4.4 doesn't understand your new constraints or are
> we doing something incorrect ?
The constraints weren't new, so in theory everything would work fine.
Except because < and > were so rarely used on many targets before,
there were backend bugs on PowerPC and SPARC at least related to that.
See
http://gcc.gnu.org/PR44707
http://gcc.gnu.org/PR44701
http://gcc.gnu.org/PR44492
So, in short, I'm afraid "m<>" needs to be used only for GCC 4.6+
(and, vendors which backported the inline-asm handling changes
to their older gcc would need to adjust for their gccs too).
When "m<>" isn't used, it just leads to potential code pessimization
in inline-asms that are prepared for handling side-effects.
Jakub
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
