[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Resend: [PATCH] [MIPS] Fix asm constraints for 'ins' instructions.

To: David Daney <>
Subject: Re: Resend: [PATCH] [MIPS] Fix asm constraints for 'ins' instructions.
From: Richard Sandiford <>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:27:10 +0100
Cc: Ralf Baechle <>, GCC Mailing List <>, MIPS Linux List <>
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:mail-followup-to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent :mime-version:content-type; bh=wNjZmHEX6jVa8NDjAz4yAd+Haf+p5cjtOBBQPiuJcWg=; b=S6BlVV2UZ15i1fpwOtSE5N0Mxs/j/ka5ixLiGmcRaqZ85pa2RDfdx2FeKgmeuwjzVk phEhJjP1OAgwvxrel03jEIE9S4I1Kn7FadMUjszt0mT/OljT9dkIPkXhAlxbHb2LxWdk gMfizHIEUgvjCabD7AQWTQ+CIn4rNcV3xBrJA=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=from:to:mail-followup-to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; b=bK5AwrOY/ATQ93WLvjgiElIZ1RY/EVxy54Gv8FUG0dMBqPEKwo8ncddSB25IXsTERf gtlxG+Ss8SxiWQej+hQu7EkGvoo/3Q9z9XPyfMVNJcTGz90WGoLiNSqj1QAyhBe3iLSK DWTigSGSpujNVGERqpwCieZdHsxztqr21u1ko=
In-reply-to: <> (David Daney's message of "Wed\, 11 Jun 2008 10\:43\:57 -0700")
Mail-followup-to: David Daney <>,Ralf Baechle <>, GCC Mailing List <>, MIPS Linux List <>,
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <>
User-agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux)
David Daney <> writes:
> Ralf Baechle wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:04:25AM -0700, David Daney wrote:
>>> The third operand to 'ins' must be a constant int, not a register.
>>> Signed-off-by: David Daney <>
>>> ---
>>> include/asm-mips/bitops.h |    6 +++---
>>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>> diff --git a/include/asm-mips/bitops.h b/include/asm-mips/bitops.h
>>> index 6427247..9a7274b 100644
>>> --- a/include/asm-mips/bitops.h
>>> +++ b/include/asm-mips/bitops.h
>>> @@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ static inline void set_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile 
>>> unsigned long *addr)
>>>             "2:     b       1b                                      \n"
>>>             "       .previous                                       \n"
>>>             : "=&r" (temp), "=m" (*m)
>>> -           : "ir" (bit), "m" (*m), "r" (~0));
>>> +           : "i" (bit), "m" (*m), "r" (~0));
>>> #endif /* CONFIG_CPU_MIPSR2 */
>>>     } else if (cpu_has_llsc) {
>>>             __asm__ __volatile__(
>> An old trick to get gcc to do the right thing.  Basically at the stage when
>> gcc is verifying the constraints it may not yet know that it can optimize
>> things into an "i" argument, so compilation may fail if "r" isn't in the
>> constraints.  However we happen to know that due to the way the code is
>> written gcc will always be able to make use of the "i" constraint so no
>> code using "r" should ever be created.
>> The trick is a bit ugly; I think it was used first in asm-i386/io.h ages ago
>> and I would be happy if we could get rid of it without creating new problems.
>> Maybe a gcc hacker here can tell more?
> It is not nice to lie to GCC.
> CCing GCC and Richard in hopes that a wider audience may shed some light on 
> the issue.

You _might_ be able to use "i#r" instead of "ri", but I wouldn't
really recommend it.  Even if it works now, I don't think there's
any guarantee it will in future.

There are tricks you could pull to detect the problem at compile time
rather than assembly time, but that's probably not a big win.  And again,
I wouldn't recommend them.

I'm not saying anything you don't know here, but if the argument is
always a syntactic constant, the safest bet would be to apply David's
patch and also convert the function into a macro.  I notice some other
ports use macros rather than inline functions here.  I assume you've
deliberately rejected macros as being too ugly though.


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