"+m" works. We use it. It's better than the alternatives. Pointing to stale documentation doesn't change anything.Well, perhaps on i386. I've seen some older versions of the s390 gcc die with an ICE because I have used "+m" in some kernel inline assembly. I'mhappy to hear that this issue is fixed in recent gcc. Now I'll have to find out if this is already true with gcc 3.x.
It was fixed (that is, "+m" is translated into a separate read and write by GCC itself) in GCC-4.0.0, I just learnt.
The duplication "=m" and "m" with the same constraint is rather annoying.
Yeah. Compiler errors are more annoying though I dare say ;-) Segher - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures
- References:
- [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures
- From: Chris Snook <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures
- From: Chris Snook <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures
- From: Chuck Ebbert <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures
- From: Martin Schwidefsky <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures
- From: Segher Boessenkool <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures
- From: Martin Schwidefsky <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures
- Prev by Date: Re: Improving read/write/close system call reliability when used with pthreads
- Next by Date: Re: [RFD] Layering: Use-Case Composers (was: DRBD - what is it, anyways? [compare with e.g. NBD + MD raid])
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures
- Index(es):
 |