[PATCH v3 3/3] powerpc/64s: feature: Work around inline asm issues

[Bill Wendling]

On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 12:10 PM Segher Boessenkool
<segher at kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 12:01:01PM -0800, Bill Wendling wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:58 AM Segher Boessenkool
> > <segher at kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 10:36 PM Segher Boessenkool
> > > > <segher at kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> > > > > "true" (as a result of a comparison) in as is -1, not 1.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:43:11AM -0800, Bill Wendling wrote:
> > > > What Segher said. :-) Also, if you reverse the comparison, you'll get
> > > > a build error.
> > >
> > > But that means your patch is the wrong way around?
> > >
> > > -       .ifgt (label##4b- label##3b)-(label##2b- label##1b);    \
> > > -       .error "Feature section else case larger than body";    \
> > > -       .endif;                                                 \
> > > +       .org . - ((label##4b-label##3b) > (label##2b-label##1b)); \
> > >
> > > It should be a + in that last line, not a -.
> >
> > I said so in a follow up email.
>
> Yeah, and that arrived a second after I pressed "send" :-)
>
Michael, I apologize for the churn with these patches. I believe the
policy is to resend the match as "v4", correct?

I ran tests with the change above. It compiled with no error. If I
switch the labels around to ".org . + ((label##2b-label##1b) >
(label##4b-label##3b))", then it fails as expected.

-bw