[Xen-devel] Re: [patch 12/26] Xen-paravirt_ops: Fix patch site clobbers to include return register

[Zachary Amsden <zach@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Zachary Amsden wrote:
>   
> > Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> >     
> > > Fix a few clobbers to include the return register.  The clobbers set
> > > is the set of all registers modified (or may be modified) by the code
> > > snippet, regardless of whether it was deliberate or accidental.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Zachary Amsden <zach@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > ---
> > >  include/asm-i386/paravirt.h |    4 ++--
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- a/include/asm-i386/paravirt.h
> > > +++ b/include/asm-i386/paravirt.h
> > > @@ -556,7 +556,7 @@ static inline unsigned long __raw_local_
> > >                         "popl %%edx; popl %%ecx")
> > >                   : "=a"(f): "m"(paravirt_ops.save_fl),
> > >                     paravirt_type(PARAVIRT_PATCH(save_fl)),
> > > -                   paravirt_clobber(CLBR_NONE)
> > > +                   paravirt_clobber(CLBR_EAX)
> > >                   : "memory", "cc");
> > >      return f;
> > >   
> > >       
> > Has this been tested on older gcc's?  I seem to recall them barfing
> > over things like this.
> >     
> Things like what?  Do you mean the %[foo] asm parameter syntax?  I think
> those versions are no longer supported - Arjan posted a patch a few days
> ago to convert a pile of asms to this form.  Or do you mean something else?
>   
I meant having an output in the clobber list, I didn't know we were 
dropping support for older versions already.
Zach

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel