On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 06:22:26PM +0100, Reimar Döffinger wrote: > On 29.03.2014, at 18:12, "Ronald S. Bultje" <rsbultje at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Matt Oliver <protogonoi at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> OK here is a slightly different approach to fixing the missing CLTD > >> instruction support for icl inline asm. After looking into the situation > >> further I noticed that CLTD is only used in 2 places and in both places it > >> is for generating a sign mask. > > > > > > Why not create a macro that expands to the correct instruction supported > > for each compiler? > > > > #if some stuff > > #define CLTD_CDQ "cdq" > > #else > > #define CLTD_CDQ "cltd" > > #endif > > > > We do that for e.g. register size detection (e.g. REG_a for eax vs. rax), I > > think it's fine here also. > > It's probably more the assembler used than the compiler actually. > Plus, we all seem to not have any of the affected systems at hand. > I admit I didn't expect we'd spend quite as much time on this. > Maybe we should indeed just switch it and figure out a solution if and when someone actually complains and we thus have a proper test-case? yes, maybe can someone provide a patch or push with matching commit message ? [...] --: <>