lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] x86: bitops asm constraint fixes
Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> I'd really like understand, though, what the policy of (not) having a
> "memory" clobber in these operations is - currently, this appears to
> be totally inconsistent. Also, many comments of the non-atomic
> functions say those may also be re-ordered - this contradicts the use
> of "asm volatile" in there, which again I'd like to understand.
>

In general, proper "m" constraints are better than "memory" clobbers,
since they give gcc more information. Note that the "m" constraint
doesn't actually have to be *manifest* in the assembly string.

-hpa


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-14 08:55    [W:0.057 / U:1.784 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site