Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "__put_user_x8".
Did you mean:
__put_user_x
2009 Jan 24
1
[LLVMdev] inline asm semantics: output constraint width smaller than input
...\
+ (int)__ret_gu; \
})
#define __put_user_x(size, x, ptr, __ret_pu) \
@@ -200,12 +200,15 @@ extern int __get_user_bad(void);
: "A" (x), "r" (addr), "i" (-EFAULT), "0" (err))
#define __put_user_x8(x, ptr, __ret_pu) \
- asm volatile("call __put_user_8" : "=a" (__ret_pu) \
- : "A" ((typeof(*(ptr)))(x)), "c" (ptr) : "ebx")
+ ({ u32 __ret_pu;\
+ asm volatile("call __put_user_8" : "=a" (_...
2009 Jan 24
0
[LLVMdev] inline asm semantics: output constraint width smaller than input
* Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2009-01-23 20:27, Török Edwin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >> i'd not mind it at all if the kernel could be built with other open-source
> >> compilers too.
> >>
> >> Now in this case the patch you suggest might end up hurting the end result
> >> so it's
2009 Jan 24
5
[LLVMdev] inline asm semantics: output constraint width smaller than input
On 2009-01-23 20:27, Török Edwin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> i'd not mind it at all if the kernel could be built with other open-source
>> compilers too.
>>
>> Now in this case the patch you suggest might end up hurting the end result
>> so it's not an unconditional 'yes'. But ... how much it actually matters
>> depends on
2009 Jan 27
0
[LLVMdev] inline asm semantics: output constraint width smaller than input
...\
__put_user_x(2, __pu_val, ptr, __ret_pu); \
break; \
case 4: \
__put_user_x(4, __pu_val, ptr, __ret_pu); \
break; \
case 8: \
__put_user_x8(__pu_val, ptr, __ret_pu); \
break; \
default: \
__put_user_x(X, __pu_val, ptr, __ret_pu); \
break; \
} \
__ret_pu; \
})
Best regards,...
2009 Jan 27
3
[LLVMdev] inline asm semantics: output constraint width smaller than input
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 20:56:30 Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2009, at 8:42 PM, Duncan Sands wrote:
> > one thing that seems to be clear to everyone except me is... what
> > are the
> > semantics supposed to be?
>
> I don't know of any other semantic other than, if they are supposed to
> be in the same register, then they have to be in the same register.