On Dec 17, 2012, at 6:26 PM, Peter Bergner <berg...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 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-$(CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64)". The reason I ask is >>> that my compiler pukes on "dcbtst" and as I deal with that I wanted >>> to point this out. >> >> I guess we could do that. It's a bit strange your assembler is >> complaining about the dcbtst instructions since we wrap them with >> power4: >> >> .machine push >> .machine "power4" >> dcbt r0,r4,0b01000 >> dcbt r0,r7,0b01010 >> dcbtst r0,r9,0b01000 >> dcbtst r0,r10,0b01010 >> eieio >> dcbt r0,r8,0b01010 /* GO */ >> .machine pop > > Jimi, are you using an "old" binutils from before my patch that > changed the operand order for these types of instructions? > > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2009-02/msg00044.html Actually, this confused me as well, that embedded has the same instruction encoding but different mnemonic. I was under the impression that the assembler made no instruction decisions based on CPU. So your only hint would be that '0b' prefix. Does AS even see that? If not, then without a _normalizing_ macro, I think will need that obj-$(CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64) and .S files with the two can never be shared. -jx > > Peter > > _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
