Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | [PATCH] x86, boot: fix word-size assumptions in has_eflag() inline asm | From | David Woodhouse <> | Date | Wed, 29 Jan 2014 12:01:37 +0000 |
| |
Commit dd78b97367bd575918204cc89107c1479d3fc1a7 ("x86, boot: Move CPU flags out of cpucheck") introduced ambiguous inline asm in the has_eflag() function. We want the instruction to be 'pushfl', but we just say 'pushf' and hope the compiler does what we wanted.
When building with 'clang -m16', it won't, because clang doesn't use the horrid '.code16gcc' hack that even 'gcc -m16' uses internally.
Say what we mean and don't make the compiler make assumptions.
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com> --- arch/x86/boot/cpuflags.c | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/cpuflags.c b/arch/x86/boot/cpuflags.c index a9fcb7c..168dd25 100644 --- a/arch/x86/boot/cpuflags.c +++ b/arch/x86/boot/cpuflags.c @@ -32,16 +32,16 @@ int has_eflag(unsigned long mask) { unsigned long f0, f1; - asm volatile("pushf \n\t" - "pushf \n\t" + asm volatile("pushfl \n\t" + "pushfl \n\t" "pop %0 \n\t" "mov %0,%1 \n\t" "xor %2,%1 \n\t" "push %1 \n\t" - "popf \n\t" - "pushf \n\t" + "popfl \n\t" + "pushfl \n\t" "pop %1 \n\t" - "popf" + "popfl" : "=&r" (f0), "=&r" (f1) : "ri" (mask)); -- 1.8.5.3
-- dwmw2 [unhandled content-type:application/x-pkcs7-signature] | |