Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86emul: relax asm() constraints

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 15/02/16 12:06, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Let's give the compiler as much liberty in picking instruction operands
> as possible. Also drop unnecessary size modifiers when the correct size
> can already be derived from the asm() operands. Finally also drop an
> "unsigned" from idiv_dbl()'s second parameter, allowing a cast to be
> eliminated.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
> @@ -611,7 +611,7 @@ do {
>   */
>  static bool_t even_parity(uint8_t v)
>  {
> -    asm ( "test %b0,%b0; setp %b0" : "=a" (v) : "0" (v) );
> +    asm ( "test %1,%1; setp %0" : "=qm" (v) : "q" (v) );
>      return v;
>  }
>  
> @@ -813,9 +813,9 @@ static int read_ulong(
>   */
>  static bool_t mul_dbl(unsigned long m[2])
>  {
> -    bool_t rc = 0;
> -    asm ( "mul %1; seto %b2"
> -          : "+a" (m[0]), "+d" (m[1]), "+q" (rc) );
> +    bool_t rc;
> +    asm ( "mul %1; seto %2"
> +          : "+a" (m[0]), "+d" (m[1]), "=q" (rc) );
>      return rc;
>  }
>  
> @@ -826,9 +826,9 @@ static bool_t mul_dbl(unsigned long m[2]
>   */
>  static bool_t imul_dbl(unsigned long m[2])
>  {
> -    bool_t rc = 0;
> +    bool_t rc;
>      asm ( "imul %1; seto %b2"
> -          : "+a" (m[0]), "+d" (m[1]), "+q" (rc) );
> +          : "+a" (m[0]), "+d" (m[1]), "=q" (rc) );
>      return rc;
>  }
>  
> @@ -854,9 +854,9 @@ static bool_t div_dbl(unsigned long u[2]
>   * NB. We don't use idiv directly as it's moderately hard to work out
>   *     ahead of time whether it will #DE, which we cannot allow to happen.
>   */
> -static bool_t idiv_dbl(unsigned long u[2], unsigned long v)
> +static bool_t idiv_dbl(unsigned long u[2], long v)
>  {
> -    bool_t negu = (long)u[1] < 0, negv = (long)v < 0;
> +    bool_t negu = (long)u[1] < 0, negv = v < 0;
>  
>      /* u = abs(u) */
>      if ( negu )
> @@ -4542,9 +4542,10 @@ x86_emulate(
>  
>      case 0xbc: /* bsf or tzcnt */ {
>          bool_t zf;
> -        asm ( "bsf %2,%0; setz %b1"
> +
> +        asm ( "bsf %2,%0; setz %1"
>                : "=r" (dst.val), "=q" (zf)

This =q could become =qm, like the even_parity() change.

> -              : "r" (src.val) );
> +              : "rm" (src.val) );
>          _regs.eflags &= ~EFLG_ZF;
>          if ( (vex.pfx == vex_f3) && vcpu_has_bmi1() )
>          {
> @@ -4567,9 +4568,10 @@ x86_emulate(
>  
>      case 0xbd: /* bsr or lzcnt */ {
>          bool_t zf;
> -        asm ( "bsr %2,%0; setz %b1"
> +
> +        asm ( "bsr %2,%0; setz %1"
>                : "=r" (dst.val), "=q" (zf)
> -              : "r" (src.val) );
> +              : "rm" (src.val) );
>          _regs.eflags &= ~EFLG_ZF;
>          if ( (vex.pfx == vex_f3) && vcpu_has_lzcnt() )
>          {
> @@ -4698,7 +4700,7 @@ x86_emulate(
>              break;
>          case 4:
>  #ifdef __x86_64__
> -            asm ( "bswap %k0" : "=r" (dst.val) : "0" (*dst.reg) );
> +            asm ( "bswap %k0" : "=r" (dst.val) : "0" (*(uint32_t *)dst.reg) 
> );

What is the purpose of both the explicit cast and k constraint?

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel