On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:41:56AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: >> > 2017-02-28 Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> >> > >> > * config/i386/i386.c (print_reg): Warn for values of 64-bit size >> > in integer register on 32-bit targets. Error out for values of >> > 8-bit size in invalid integer register. >> > >> > testsuite/ChangeLog: >> > >> > 2017-02-28 Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> >> > >> > * gcc.target/i386/invsize-1.c: New test. >> > * gcc.target/i386/invsize-2.c: Ditto. >> > >> > OK for mainline in stage 4? >> >> Yes. > > Have you tried to build say Linux kernel or firefox or similar large > codebase with lots of inline asm with that?
No... > What constraint should people use for long long vars in 32-bit code? > "A" constraint is used a lot in 32-bit code (say for inline asm with > rdtsc), but what if you need more than one long long input? Hm, we don't guarantee DImode register pairs other that "A" constraint. But you are right, we have to allow "A" for 64bit eax/edx pair. Please consider the 64bit warning part dropped. Uros.
