From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:48:02 +0000 (+0000)
Subject: [ARM] 3252/1: help gcc do the best with ___arch__swab32
X-Git-Tag: v2.6.16-rc1~179^2~6
X-Git-Url: https://err.no/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=a3e49436867e6c7acc1b5eed21d30c88d156825b;p=linux-2.6

[ARM] 3252/1: help gcc do the best with ___arch__swab32

Patch from Nicolas Pitre

Depending on your gcc version, the current C-only implementation would
produce suboptimal code, ranging from a bad register selection forcing
an additional mov instruction to a failure to merge the eor and the ror
in a single instruction.  With a little help gcc always produces the
best code.

Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
---

diff --git a/include/asm-arm/byteorder.h b/include/asm-arm/byteorder.h
index 741f5bc5d0..17eaf8bdf0 100644
--- a/include/asm-arm/byteorder.h
+++ b/include/asm-arm/byteorder.h
@@ -22,7 +22,16 @@ static inline __attribute_const__ __u32 ___arch__swab32(__u32 x)
 {
 	__u32 t;
 
-	t = x ^ ((x << 16) | (x >> 16));	/* eor r1,r0,r0,ror #16  */
+	if (__builtin_constant_p(x)) {
+		t = x ^ ((x << 16) | (x >> 16)); /* eor r1,r0,r0,ror #16 */
+	} else {
+		/*
+		 * The compiler needs a bit of a hint here to always do the
+		 * right thing and not screw it up to different degrees
+		 * depending on the gcc version.
+		 */
+		asm ("eor\t%0, %1, %1, ror #16" : "=r" (t) : "r" (x));
+	}
 	x = (x << 24) | (x >> 8);		/* mov r0,r0,ror #8      */
 	t &= ~0x00FF0000;			/* bic r1,r1,#0x00FF0000 */
 	x ^= (t >> 8);				/* eor r0,r0,r1,lsr #8   */