Re: [PATCH] x86: use 'rep bsf' syntax when assembler supports it

2012-07-03 Thread Richard Guenther
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Richard Guenther > wrote: > > Based on the observation above, the patch is OK for mainline, but > please also handle "rep nop" case. Here's the new version of the patch that does that. Note t

Re: [PATCH] x86: use 'rep bsf' syntax when assembler supports it

2012-07-03 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: Based on the observation above, the patch is OK for mainline, but please also handle "rep nop" case. >>> >>> Here's the new version of the patch that does that. Note that someone >>> needs to commit this for me, since I am not em

Re: [PATCH] x86: use 'rep bsf' syntax when assembler supports it

2012-07-03 Thread Richard Guenther
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Roland McGrath wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >>> Based on the observation above, the patch is OK for mainline, but >>> please also handle "rep nop" case. >> >> Here's the new versi

Re: [PATCH] x86: use 'rep bsf' syntax when assembler supports it

2012-07-03 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Roland McGrath wrote: > On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> Based on the observation above, the patch is OK for mainline, but >> please also handle "rep nop" case. > > Here's the new version of the patch that does that. Note that someone > needs

Re: [off list] Re: [PATCH] x86: use 'rep bsf' syntax when assembler supports it

2012-07-02 Thread Roland McGrath
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > Based on the observation above, the patch is OK for mainline, but > please also handle "rep nop" case. Here's the new version of the patch that does that. Note that someone needs to commit this for me, since I am not empowered to do it myself.

Re: [off list] Re: [PATCH] x86: use 'rep bsf' syntax when assembler supports it

2012-07-01 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Roland McGrath wrote: > Here is an alternative patch that just changes the configure test > controlling %; so it will elide the ; only for an assembler that > also accepts 'rep bsf', 'rep bsr', and 'rep ret', and just uses > %; for these cases too. You'll need to

Re: [off list] Re: [PATCH] x86: use 'rep bsf' syntax when assembler supports it

2012-06-22 Thread Roland McGrath
Here is an alternative patch that just changes the configure test controlling %; so it will elide the ; only for an assembler that also accepts 'rep bsf', 'rep bsr', and 'rep ret', and just uses %; for these cases too. You'll need to have built binutils from its trunk within the last five minutes

Re: [PATCH] x86: use 'rep bsf' syntax when assembler supports it

2012-06-22 Thread Roland McGrath
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > Please do not introduce new macro, just use #ifdef > HAVE_AS_IX86_REP_BSFBSR directly in i386.md. Would you want the same #ifdef in two places if I extend this to handle 'rep ret' too, or would a macro then be preferable? To me, the macro is

Re: [PATCH] x86: use 'rep bsf' syntax when assembler supports it

2012-06-22 Thread Uros Bizjak
Hello! > The GNU assembler now (just as of today) accepts 'rep bsf ...' or 'rep bsr > ...' > syntax. It's always better to put a prefix on the instruction itself > rather than to write 'rep; ...'. This changes 'rep; bsf ...' to 'rep bsf ...' > when the assembler accepts the latter. > 2012-06-2

[PATCH] x86: use 'rep bsf' syntax when assembler supports it

2012-06-22 Thread Roland McGrath
The GNU assembler now (just as of today) accepts 'rep bsf ...' or 'rep bsr ...' syntax. It's always better to put a prefix on the instruction itself rather than to write 'rep; ...'. This changes 'rep; bsf ...' to 'rep bsf ...' when the assembler accepts the latter. Thanks, Roland gcc/ 2012-06