[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] incorrect asm constraints for ll/sc constructs

To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] incorrect asm constraints for ll/sc constructs
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 16:44:59 -0700
In-reply-to: <>; from on Thu, May 24, 2001 at 03:42:56PM +0200
References: <> <>
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.16i
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 03:42:56PM +0200, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > The ll/sc constructs in the kernel use ".set noat" to inhibit use of $at,
> > and proceed to use it themselves.  This is fine, except for one problem: the
> > constraints on memory operands are "o" and "=o", which means offsettable
> > memory references.  If I'm not mistaken, the assembler will (always?)
> > turn these into uses of $at if the offset is not 0 - at least, it certainly
> > seems to do that here (gcc 2.95.3, binutils  Just being honest
> > with the compiler and asking for a real memory reference does the trick. 
>  Both "m" and "o" seem to be incorrect here as both are the same for MIPS; 
> "R" seems to be appropriate, OTOH.  Still gcc 2.95.3 doesn't handle "R" 
> fine for all cases, but it works most of the time and emits a warning
> otherwise.  I can't comment on 3.0.

They aren't the same for MIPS, though.  I exhibit as evidence the fact
that my patch fixed the problem I was seeing.  I didn't know about 'R';
I suppose that it is more correct.  'm' at least is closer than 'o',

If 'R' will behave correctly, could that be applied to CVS, then?

>  Note that if noat is in effect and at is to be used, gas should bail out
> with an error.  There is a bug, if it doesn't.

It issues a warning, currently ( - I think 2.11 behaves the

Daniel Jacobowitz                           Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Monta Vista Software                              Debian Security Team

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>