This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PROPOSAL: Extend inline asm syntax with size spec
- From: "Borislav Petkov via gcc" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: Masahiro Yamada <yamada dot masahiro at socionext dot com>
- Cc: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>, Nadav Amit <namit at vmware dot com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo at redhat dot com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor dot com>, rguenther at suse dot de, matz at suse dot de, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, X86 ML <x86 at kernel dot org>, Sam Ravnborg <sam at ravnborg dot org>, Alok Kataria <akataria at vmware dot com>, Christopher Li <sparse at chrisli dot org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh at linuxfoundation dot org>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich at suse dot com>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe at redhat dot com>, Juergen Gross <jgross at suse dot com>, Kate Stewart <kstewart at linuxfoundation dot org>, Kees Cook <keescook at chromium dot org>, linux-sparse at vger dot kernel dot org, "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz at infradead dot org>, Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne at nexb dot com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix dot de>, virtualization at lists dot linux-foundation dot org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation dot org>, Chris Zankel <chris at zankel dot net>, Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc at gmail dot com>, linux-xtensa at linux-xtensa dot org
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:07:18 +0100
- Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Extend inline asm syntax with size spec
- References: <20181003213100.189959-1-namit@vmware.com> <20181007091805.GA30687@zn.tnic> <20181007132228.GJ29268@gate.crashing.org> <alpine.LSU.2.21.1810071534220.7867@wotan.suse.de> <20181008073128.GL29268@gate.crashing.org> <alpine.LSU.2.20.1810081105350.16707@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <20181009145330.GT29268@gate.crashing.org> <CAK7LNARmrdtyE7JRAdJH_zbfvD_cej+TGLh+5KfT20o538KUcA@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: Borislav Petkov <bp at alien8 dot de>
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 08:46:34PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> But, I'd like to ask if x86 people want to keep this macros.s approach.
> Revert 77b0bf55bc675 right now
> assuming the compiler will eventually solve the issue?
Yap, considering how elegant the compiler solution is and how much
problems this macros-in-asm thing causes, I think we should patch
out the latter and wait for gcc9. I mean, the savings are not so
mind-blowing to have to deal with the fallout.
But this is just my opinion.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--