Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures

[Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>]

> > > #define forget(a)	__asm__ __volatile__ ("" :"=m" (a) :"m" (a))
> > >
> > > [ This is exactly equivalent to using "+m" in the constraints, as 
> > > recently
> > >   explained on a GCC list somewhere, in response to the patch in my 
> > > bitops
> > >   series a few weeks back where I thought "+m" was bogus. ]
> >
> > [It wasn't explained on a GCC list in response to your patch, as
> > far as I can see -- if I missed it, please point me to an archived
> > version of it].
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-07/msg01758.html

Ah yes, that old thread, thank you.

> That's when _I_ came to know how GCC interprets "+m", but probably
> this has been explained on those lists multiple times. Who cares,
> anyway?

I just couldn't find the thread you meant, I thought I missed
have it, that's all :-)


Segher

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