From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754144AbZBJLM0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2009 06:12:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750904AbZBJLMO (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2009 06:12:14 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:52738 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750759AbZBJLMM (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2009 06:12:12 -0500 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:11:54 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Tejun Heo , hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/11] x86: use asm .macro instead of cpp #define in entry_32.S Message-ID: <20090210111154.GA7822@elte.hu> References: <1234186798-16820-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1234186798-16820-9-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <4990774E.5080206@goop.org> <4990D4E3.1010109@kernel.org> <4990D5F5.9030409@goop.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4990D5F5.9030409@goop.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Tejun Heo wrote: >> Hmm... I originally did the conversion because I had some .if trick in >> SAVE_ALL which got removed later. Even after the removal, it >> generally looked like a good idea as x86_64 asm was primarily using >> .macro too. I do like being able to see the post-processing output of >> cpp too but for assembler disassembling the output often seem to give >> enough clue, > > That's assuming that the file assembles. But if you're trying to assemble > and the best error the assembler comes up with is "bad operand" on the line > where you're using the macro, its extremely frustrating trying to work out > where the problem actually lies. Yeah, i had that experience with GAS usability with all the CFI restructuring we did. But it should be pretty rare that we come up with instructions that do not assemble - and even rarer that we come up with a _lot_ of new instructions that do not assemble. The trick i used was to remove bits of the macro to hone in on the bad instruction/construct. Stone-age tool but works. Ingo