Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
From: Segher Boessenkool <hidden>
Date: 2007-08-17 23:58:09
Also in:
lkml, netdev
From: Segher Boessenkool <hidden>
Date: 2007-08-17 23:58:09
Also in:
lkml, netdev
quoted
quoted
#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wasn't explained on a GCC list in response to your patch, as far as I can see -- if I missed it, please point me to an archived version of it].http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-07/msg01758.html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