On Mon, 2012-12-17 at 22:33 +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> Hi Jimi,
>
> > I know this is a little late, but shouldn't these power7 specific
> > thingies be in "obj-$(CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64)". The reason I ask is
> > that my compiler pukes on "dcbtst" and as I deal with that I wanted
> > to point this out.
>
> I guess we could do that. It's a bit strange your assembler is
> complaining about the dcbtst instructions since we wrap them with
> power4:
>
> .machine push
> .machine "power4"
> dcbt r0,r4,0b01000
> dcbt r0,r7,0b01010
> dcbtst r0,r9,0b01000
> dcbtst r0,r10,0b01010
> eieio
> dcbt r0,r8,0b01010 /* GO */
> .machine pop
Jimi, are you using an "old" binutils from before my patch that
changed the operand order for these types of instructions?
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2009-02/msg00044.html
Peter
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
