Message-ID: <55B69F2D.3070603@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:14:21 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>
CC: Uros Bizjak <uros_bizjak1@t-2.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ASM flags in general
References: <1438019319-19731-1-git-send-email-uros_bizjak1@t-2.net>	<55B680D8.5070702@zytor.com> <CAFULd4avNv-betLaxzx1s-7ED3UDUuKnaNj-D0CsjEZWCL-twA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFULd4avNv-betLaxzx1s-7ED3UDUuKnaNj-D0CsjEZWCL-twA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 895
Lines: 26

On 07/27/2015 01:01 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 9:04 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> 
>> I wonder if using "set" would be a performance regression over "sbb" for
>> the existing bitops, in which case it would slot quite nicely into this
>> scheme.
> 
> As far as I have looked into the compiled code, following sequence was
> produced when the value was directly used as bool
> 
  [...]
> 
> vs. new sequence:
> 

You misunderstood me: I was referring to *old* versions of gcc (≤ 5); in
order words: can we use the macros I proposed instead of #ifdef?  For
gcc 6+ we obviously want to use the flags output.

	-hpa

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/