Re: [PATCH 3/8] i386: bitops: Rectify bogus "+m" constraints

Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:

> > So, using the "+" constraint modifier for memory, like "+m" is bogus.
> > We must simply specify "=m" which handles the case correctly.
> 
> No. This is wrong.

Agreed.

> "=m" means that the new value of the memory location is *set*.
> 
> Which means that gcc will potentially optimize away any previous stores to 
> that memory location.
> 
> And yes, it happens, and yes, we've seen it.

I had a lot of "fun" with this when mucking around with the asm-optimised R/W
semaphores.

David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH 3/8] i386: bitops: Rectify bogus "+m" constraints
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 0/8] i386: bitops: Cleanup, sanitize, optimize
    • From: Satyam Sharma <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 3/8] i386: bitops: Rectify bogus "+m" constraints
    • From: Satyam Sharma <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 8/8] dm: dm-target.c Convert kmalloc + memset to kzalloc
• Next by Date: Re: Towards eliminating the freezer
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 3/8] i386: bitops: Rectify bogus "+m" constraints
• Next by thread: [PATCH 4/8] i386: bitops: Kill volatile-casting of memory addresses
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]