>>> On 12.03.15 at 11:42, <t...@xen.org> wrote:
> At 16:36 +0000 on 10 Mar (1426001780), Jan Beulich wrote:
>> @@ -806,9 +802,9 @@ static int read_ulong(
>> static bool_t mul_dbl(unsigned long m[2])
>> {
>> bool_t rc;
>> - asm ( "mul %4; seto %b2"
>> - : "=a" (m[0]), "=d" (m[1]), "=q" (rc)
>> - : "0" (m[0]), "1" (m[1]), "2" (0) );
>> + asm ( "mul %1; seto %b2"
>> + : "+a" (m[0]), "+d" (m[1]), "=q" (rc)
>> + : "2" (0) );
>
> Would 'bool_t rc = 0' allow you to switch operand 2 to +q and drop the
> last input operand as well?
Yes.
> Or did that also produce worse code?
I didn't try yet, but I can't see why it would.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
