Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures

[Segher Boessenkool]

> > "+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'm
> happy 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/