[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1186683646.9669.20.camel@localhost>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 20:20:46 +0200
From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>, Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ak@...e.de, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
davem@...emloft.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, wensong@...ux-vs.org, horms@...ge.net.au,
wjiang@...ilience.com, cfriesen@...tel.com, zlynx@....org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 10:55 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > You can use this forget() macro to make the compiler reread a variable:
> >
> > #define forget(var) asm volatile ("" : "=m"(var))
>
> No. That will also make the compiler "forget" any previous writes to it,
> so it changes behaviour.
>
> You'd have to use "+m".
Yes, though I would use "=m" on the output list and "m" on the input
list. The reason is that I've seen gcc fall on its face with an ICE on
s390 due to "+m". The explanation I've got from our compiler people was
quite esoteric, as far as I remember gcc splits "+m" to an input operand
and an output operand. Now it can happen that the compiler chooses two
different registers to access the same memory location. "+m" requires
that the two memory references are identical which causes the ICE if
they are not. I do not know if the current compilers still do this. Has
anyone else seen this happen ?
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists