| To: | "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: CVS Update@linux-mips.org: linux |
| From: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> |
| Date: | Fri, 8 Jul 2005 14:55:52 +0100 |
| Cc: | linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0507081309530.25104@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <20050708091711Z8226352-3678+1954@linux-mips.org> <20050708120238.GA2816@linux-mips.org> <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0507081309530.25104@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.2.1i |
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 01:12:55PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > > Protect noat assembly with .set push/pop and make it somewhat readable. > > > > It doesn't need protction. > > Are you absolutely sure future versions of GCC won't default to ".set > noat" for inline asm? I am not; in fact the opposite is not unlikely. Indeed - but everybody is free to shoot himself into the foot. With uzis even. Does that make it a good idea? Ralf |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Benchmarking RM9000, Laurence Darby |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Benchmarking RM9000, Alex Gonzalez |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: CVS Update@linux-mips.org: linux, Richard Sandiford |
| Next by Thread: | Benchmarking RM9000, Alex Gonzalez |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |