In line ASM magic? What is this?
I am trying to understand what is going on in the following code. The reference for %2, i.e. "m"(*__xg(ptr)) seems like magic (from .../include/i386/system.h). At the same time, the code "m" (*mem) from the second __asm__ below (my code) seems to generate the required asm code. Before I go with the simple version, could someone tell me why? Inquiring minds want to know.
struct __xchg_dummy { unsigned long a[100]; };
#define __xg(x) ((struct __xchg_dummy *)(x))
__asm__ __volatile__(LOCK_PREFIX "cmpxchgl %b1,%2"
: "=a"(prev)
: "q"(new), "m"(*__xg(ptr)), "0"(old)
: "memory");
__asm__ __volatile__(
LOCK "cmpxchgl %1,%2\n\t"
:"=a" (result)
:"r" (new),
"m" (*mem),
"a0" (test)
: "memory");George
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
** Reply to message from George Anzinger <[email protected]> on Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:55:46 -0800
Quoted 10 lines
I am trying to understand what is going on in the following code. The reference for %2, i.e. "m"(*__xg(ptr)) seems like magic (from
.../include/i386/system.h). At the same time, the code "m" (*mem) from the second__asm__below (my code) seems to generate the required asm code. Before I go with the simple version, could someone tell me why? Inquiring minds want to know.struct
__xchg_dummy{ unsigned long a[100]; };
#define__xg(x)((struct__xchg_dummy*)(x))
Quoted 13 lines
__asm__ __volatile__(LOCK_PREFIX "cmpxchgl %b1,%2"
: "=a"(prev)
: "q"(new), "m"(*__xg(ptr)), "0"(old)
: "memory");
__asm__ __volatile__(
LOCK "cmpxchgl %1,%2\n\t"
:"=a" (result)
:"r" (new),
"m" (*mem),
"a0" (test)
: "memory");I've been a lot of gcc inline asm recently, and I still consider it a black art. There are times when I just throw in what I think makes sense, and then look at the code the compiler generated. If it's wrong, I try something else.
Both versions look correct to me. The "m" simply tells the compiler that __xg(ptr) is a memory location, and the contents of that memory location should NOT be copied to a register. The confusion occurs because its unintuitive that the "*" is required. Otherwise, it would have been "r", which basically tells the compiler to copy the contents to a register first.
Signature · 8 lines
Timur Tabi - [email protected] Interactive Silicon - http://www.interactivesi.com When replying to a mailing-list message, please direct the reply to the mailing list only. Don't send another copy to me. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 32 lines · Timur Tabi
** Reply to message from George Anzinger <[email protected]> on Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:55:46 -0800
Quoted 10 lines
I am trying to understand what is going on in the following code. The reference for %2, i.e. "m"(*__xg(ptr)) seems like magic (from
.../include/i386/system.h). At the same time, the code "m" (*mem) from the second__asm__below (my code) seems to generate the required asm code. Before I go with the simple version, could someone tell me why? Inquiring minds want to know.struct
__xchg_dummy{ unsigned long a[100]; };
#define__xg(x)((struct__xchg_dummy*)(x))Quoted 13 lines
__asm__ __volatile__(LOCK_PREFIX "cmpxchgl %b1,%2" : "=a"(prev) : "q"(new), "m"(*__xg(ptr)), "0"(old) : "memory"); __asm__ __volatile__( LOCK "cmpxchgl %1,%2\n\t" :"=a" (result) :"r" (new), "m" (*mem), "a0" (test) : "memory");I've been a lot of gcc inline asm recently, and I still consider it a black art. There are times when I just throw in what I think makes sense, and then look at the code the compiler generated. If it's wrong, I try something else.
Quoted 6 lines
Both versions look correct to me. The "m" simply tells the compiler that
__xg(ptr)is a memory location, and the contents of that memory location should NOT be copied to a register. The confusion occurs because its unintuitive that the "*" is required. Otherwise, it would have been "r", which basically tells the compiler to copy the contents to a register first.
I know the feeling. I am currently strugling with "inconsistant constraints". Still, I must assume that form 1 was used instead of 2 for some reason....
George
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/