[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures
On Sun, 2007-08-12 at 07:53 +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Yes, though I would use "=m" on the output list and "m" on the input
> > list. The reason is that I've seen gcc fall on its face with an ICE on
> > s390 due to "+m". The explanation I've got from our compiler people was
> > quite esoteric, as far as I remember gcc splits "+m" to an input
> > operand
> > and an output operand. Now it can happen that the compiler chooses two
> > different registers to access the same memory location. "+m" requires
> > that the two memory references are identical which causes the ICE if
> > they are not.
> The problem is very nicely described here, last paragraph:
> <>
> It's not a problem anymore in (very) recent GCC, although
> that of course won't help you in the kernel (yet).

So you are saying that gcc 3.x still has this problem ?

> > I do not know if the current compilers still do this. Has
> > anyone else seen this happen ?
> In recent GCC, it's actually documented:
> The ordinary output operands must be write-only; GCC will assume that
> the values in these operands before the instruction are dead and need
> not be generated. Extended asm supports input-output or read-write
> operands. Use the constraint character `+' to indicate such an operand
> and list it with the output operands. You should only use read-write
> operands when the constraints for the operand (or the operand in which
> only some of the bits are to be changed) allow a register.
> Note that last line.

I see, thanks for the info.

blue skies,

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-08-12 11:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean