[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: GCC proposal for "@" asm constraint
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 04:01:26PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> I can't remember exactly what it was now, but I think it was either something
> to do with spinlocks or bitops. I'll re-investigate tonight and see if I can
> come back with some benchmarks/code-snippets tomorrow.

Yes you should tell us which is the inlined function that generated
different asm (if you post the two differnt asm or the two different .o we
can probably find it ourself).

I seen the rw_spin_locks are silly requesting the address of the spinlock to be
in the register eax when the address of the spinlock isn't a constant (while it
should instead at least use "r" and not "a") and I was going to fix it, however
that's not changed between test7 and test8...

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.631 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site