Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 7602] New: Failure on compilation: include/asm/bitops.h:122: error: inconsistent operand constraints in an `asm' in nfs_access_add_cache()

[Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:49:12 +0100 Andi Kleen wrote:

> On Thursday 30 November 2006 23:32, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:22:00 +0100
> > Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > static __inline__ int __test_and_set_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr)
> > > > {
> > > > 	int oldbit;
> > > > 
> > > > 	__asm__(
> > > > 		"btsl %2,%1\n\tsbbl %0,%0"
> > > > 		:"=r" (oldbit),"+m" (ADDR)
> > > > 		:"dIr" (nr));
> > > > 	return oldbit;
> > > > }
> > > > 
> > > > explodes with gcc-3.4.4.
> > > 
> > > Known issue.  The new form is correct and needed, but the old gcc doesn't accept
> > > it. I haven't gotten a form that is both and correct and works on the old compiler
> > > out of the gcc hackers I asked.
> > 
> > Oh, thanks.
> > 
> > What does "d" do, btw?  My gcc info page only covers "x86" and says only "`d' register"
> 
> Hmm, normally edx (aka Extended D register eXtended :) or rdx 
> 
> But you're right it doesn't make sense here because 'd' is already included in 'r'.
> Probably should be dropped.
> 
> > 
> > (And, more importantly, where is the best description of gcc asm constraints?)
> 
> Either info pages or gcc source. There was also a web page somewhere with a tutorial,
> but i don't think it was a full reference.

e.g. (may be ix86 instead of x86_64):

http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.1.1/gcc/Constraints.html#Constraints

http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-ia.html

http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9804.2/0953.html

---
~Randy