[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <899db25b292a84560e5cc955ebe4c9e1@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 01:55:55 +0200
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
horms@...ge.net.au,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
rpjday@...dspring.com, ak@...e.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
cfriesen@...tel.com, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, jesper.juhl@...il.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, zlynx@....org,
clameter@....com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert.xu@...hat.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
wensong@...ux-vs.org, wjiang@...ilience.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
>>> #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 netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists