Re: still no accelerated X ($#!$*)

3 messages, 3 authors, 2000-01-20 · open the first message on its own page

Re: still no accelerated X ($#!$*)

From: David Edelsohn <hidden>
Date: 2000-01-20 18:19:48

	Why does each application/library define its own, incorrect
definition of byte-reversed instructions?  Doesn't some Linux/PPC header
file define this once in a awy that could be imported by others?

	One cannot use "r" as a constraint for a base address, that is
what the GCC PowerPC port defines "b" for.  The load/store instruction
patterns in the GCC PowerPC machine description file use a different
constraint letter for the base address, and anyone writing inlined
assembly -- especially loads and stores -- should browse the GCC machine
description.

David


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: still no accelerated X ($#!$*)

From: Kevin Hendricks <hidden>
Date: 2000-01-20 18:25:40

Hi,

Thanks for your reply.
Why does each application/library define its own, incorrect
definition of byte-reversed instructions?  Doesn't some Linux/PPC header
file define this once in a awy that could be imported by others?
I could not find one.  I will look again.
	One cannot use "r" as a constraint for a base address, that is
what the GCC PowerPC port defines "b" for.  The load/store instruction
patterns in the GCC PowerPC machine description file use a different
constraint letter for the base address, and anyone writing inlined
assembly -- especially loads and stores -- should browse the GCC machine
description.
Thanks I will as soon as I find it ;-).  But the assembler generated was exactly
the same in my simple test case.  Is this just luck?

Thanks,

Kevin

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: still no accelerated X ($#!$*)

From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date: 2000-01-20 18:42:55

On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Kevin Hendricks wrote:
quoted
	One cannot use "r" as a constraint for a base address, that is
what the GCC PowerPC port defines "b" for.  The load/store instruction
patterns in the GCC PowerPC machine description file use a different
constraint letter for the base address, and anyone writing inlined
assembly -- especially loads and stores -- should browse the GCC machine
description.
Thanks I will as soon as I find it ;-).  But the assembler generated was exactly
the same in my simple test case.  Is this just luck?
Yes it is.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- Linux/{m68k~Amiga,PPC~CHRP} -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help