search for: btrq

...I was trying to show a reduced case where gas doesn't complain, but llvm-mc does. Try compiling this with llvm-mc, and you'll get: .text btrl $1, 0 in.s:2:1: error: ambiguous instructions require an explicit suffix (could be 'btrw', 'btrl', or 'btrq') btr $1, 0 ^ btsl $1, 0 in.s:4:1: error: ambiguous instructions require an explicit suffix (could be 'btsw', 'btsl', or 'btsq') bts $1, 0 ^ Obviously, I misunderstood something major and screwed up the commit message. > int main(int argc, c...

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: > 1c54d77 (x86: partial unification of asm-x86/bitops.h, 2008-01-30) > changed a bunch of btrl/btsl instructions to btr/bts, with the following > justification: > > The inline assembly for the bit operations has been changed to remove > explicit sizing hints on the instructions, so the

1c54d77 (x86: partial unification of asm-x86/bitops.h, 2008-01-30) changed a bunch of btrl/btsl instructions to btr/bts, with the following justification: The inline assembly for the bit operations has been changed to remove explicit sizing hints on the instructions, so the assembler will pick the appropriate instruction forms depending on the architecture and the context. Unfortunately,

...inaries for Linux x86_64. This code worked just fine with older versions of llvm-gcc on 32 bit Linux. FD_ZERO is defined in /usr/include/bits/select.h like this: # if __WORDSIZE == 64 # define __FD_ZERO_STOS "stosq" # define __FD_SET_BTS "btsq" # define __FD_CLR_BTR "btrq" # define __FD_ISSET_BT "btq" # else # define __FD_ZERO_STOS "stosl" # define __FD_SET_BTS "btsl" # define __FD_CLR_BTR "btrl" # define __FD_ISSET_BT "btl" # endif # define __FD_ZERO(fdsp) \ do {...