summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/src/s60installs
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorThiago Macieira <thiago.macieira@nokia.com>2009-05-08 18:45:24 (GMT)
committeraxis <qt-info@nokia.com>2009-11-13 10:57:50 (GMT)
commit43c607383697ab506f9eb0d491ec6348f939e53d (patch)
tree9c2d1838a70adfad4e5f2ac6a30df9bd518b2fec /src/s60installs
parentaeac586476a6e47c7a8a6aa2121bfe39a29d8458 (diff)
downloadQt-43c607383697ab506f9eb0d491ec6348f939e53d.zip
Qt-43c607383697ab506f9eb0d491ec6348f939e53d.tar.gz
Qt-43c607383697ab506f9eb0d491ec6348f939e53d.tar.bz2
Add the ARMv6 inline assembly code for compiling with RVCT.
This is basically a copy & paste of the GCC inline assembly above, switched to the RVCT inline assembly model (which is actually easier to write and understand). I verified that this code compiles and assembles as expected. The output generated by RVCT is pretty much on the mark. However, I have not executed this code yet to see if it performs as expected. To be noted: - when expanding the inline template code, RVCT may be tempted to switch your entire function to ARM mode. Should we add __attribute__((noinline)) to prevent that? - There's no equivalent to GCC inline assembler's clobber, especially of "memory". Also, there's no "volatile" qualifier to the assembly. Does the compiler know it can't reorder the code? Does it know it shouldn't trust the value of the memory after this? My test indicates the code is fine... Reviewed-By: Shane Kearns
Diffstat (limited to 'src/s60installs')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions