lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sat, 18 Aug 2007 01:55:55 +0200
From:	Segher Boessenkool <>
To:	Satyam Sharma <>
Cc:	Paul Mackerras <>,,,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,,,,, Nick Piggin <>,,,
	Andrew Morton <>,,,,
	Chris Snook <>,
	Herbert Xu <>,,
	Linus Torvalds <>,,
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].

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 :-)


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists