Resend: [PATCH] [MIPS] Fix asm constraints for 'ins' instructions.

[David Daney]

Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:04:25AM -0700, David Daney wrote:
> 
>> The third operand to 'ins' must be a constant int, not a register.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Daney <ddaney@avtrex.com>
>> ---
>> include/asm-mips/bitops.h |    6 +++---
>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/asm-mips/bitops.h b/include/asm-mips/bitops.h
>> index 6427247..9a7274b 100644
>> --- a/include/asm-mips/bitops.h
>> +++ b/include/asm-mips/bitops.h
>> @@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ static inline void set_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
>> 		"2:	b	1b					\n"
>> 		"	.previous					\n"
>> 		: "=&r" (temp), "=m" (*m)
>> -		: "ir" (bit), "m" (*m), "r" (~0));
>> +		: "i" (bit), "m" (*m), "r" (~0));
>> #endif /* CONFIG_CPU_MIPSR2 */
>> 	} else if (cpu_has_llsc) {
>> 		__asm__ __volatile__(
> 
> An old trick to get gcc to do the right thing.  Basically at the stage when
> gcc is verifying the constraints it may not yet know that it can optimize
> things into an "i" argument, so compilation may fail if "r" isn't in the
> constraints.  However we happen to know that due to the way the code is
> written gcc will always be able to make use of the "i" constraint so no
> code using "r" should ever be created.
> 
> The trick is a bit ugly; I think it was used first in asm-i386/io.h ages ago
> and I would be happy if we could get rid of it without creating new problems.
> Maybe a gcc hacker here can tell more?

It is not nice to lie to GCC.

CCing GCC and Richard in hopes that a wider audience may shed some light on the issue.

David Daney