[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
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.


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-14 08:55    [W:0.073 / U:0.448 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site