This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: i386 inline-asm string functions - some questions

From: "Zack Weinberg" <zack at codesourcery dot com>
To: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>
Cc: libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com, linux-gcc at vger dot kernel dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 17:21:16 -0800
Subject: Re: i386 inline-asm string functions - some questions
References: <20031225052045.A18774@zzz.ward.six><20031225003819.GC13447@redhat.com><20031225061524.E7419@zzz.ward.six>

Denis Zaitsev <zzz@anda.ru> writes:

>> You could use the "X" constraint, which is supposed to mean "anything"
>> and by implication "unused", but it's normally only with scratch
>> registers, not memories, and the address reloads don't get deleted.
>  
> Yes, I've tried the "X" - there is no difference from the "m" - all
> the same unneded extra code (exactly).

I think the most constructive thing for you to do is find out _why_
all this unneeded extra code is being generated for "m" constraints
and then submit a patch to fix it.

zw

Follow-Ups:
- Re: i386 inline-asm string functions - some questions
  - From: Denis Zaitsev

References:
- i386 inline-asm string functions - some questions
  - From: Denis Zaitsev
- Re: i386 inline-asm string functions - some questions
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: i386 inline-asm string functions - some questions
  - From: Denis Zaitsev

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]