Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "824a907".
Did you mean:
24907
2013 Jul 10
3
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] x86: disambiguate unqualified btr, bts
...alid, and have existed since
> Intel 386. GNU as supports them fine. Unfortunately, LLVM does not
> support them, and barfs with:
>
> error: ambiguous instructions require an explicit suffix
>
> Fix this problem by disambiguating it correctly, following the example
> set by 824a907.
>
> Cc: Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com>
> Cc: Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org>
> Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com>
> ---
> I've probably done something stupid; seems to build correctly, but
> that's all I know....
2013 Jul 10
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] x86: disambiguate unqualified btr, bts
...>> Intel 386. GNU as supports them fine. Unfortunately, LLVM does not
>> support them, and barfs with:
>>
>> error: ambiguous instructions require an explicit suffix
>>
>> Fix this problem by disambiguating it correctly, following the example
>> set by 824a907.
>>
>> Cc: Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com>
>> Cc: Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com>
>> ---
>> I've probably done something stupid; seems to build correctly, but
>&...
2013 Jul 11
1
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] x86: disambiguate unqualified btr, bts
On Wednesday 10 July 2013 22:18:23 Jevin Sweval wrote:
> http://www.cs.fsu.edu/~baker/devices/lxr/http/source/linux/arch/x86/include/
> asm/bitops.h#L68
>
> Here is one example that I found. Are the inline assembly arguments
> ambiguous in size?
It would help us for sure to build the kernel and others.
--
JS