On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 16:12 +1000, Michael Neuling wrote: > Michael Ellerman <mich...@ellerman.id.au> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 16:05 +1000, Michael Neuling wrote: > > > Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 18:40 +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > > > > +err1; dcbz r0,r3 > > > > > > > > > > There is no such instruction, you probably meant "dcbz 0,r3"? > > > > > > > > This reminds me... what would happen if we changed all our > > > > > > > > #define r0 0 > > > > #define r1 1 > > > > > > > > etc... to: > > > > > > > > #define r0 %r0 > > > > #define r1 %r1 > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > I'm thinking it might help catch that sort of nasties (and some of them > > > > can be really nasty, such as inverting mfspr/mtspr arguments, or vs ori, > > > > etc... ). I'm sure we'd have a problem with a few macros & inline > > > > constructs but nothing we can't fix.. > > > > > > One problem with this is when we construct the instructions, like using > > > anything from ppc-opcode.h. eg. using PPC_POPCNTB would need to go from: > > > PPC_POPCNTB(r3,r3) > > > to: > > > PPC_POPCNTB(3,3) > > > > #define R(x) x > > #define R(x) (x) > > > #define PPC_POPCNTB(R(3), R(3)) > > Maybe, looks pretty gross but you're the maintainer! :-)
No I am not! I agree it's fairly gross. But I'll take gross and correct over ungross and buggy. cheers _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
