Re: [RFC] x86: bitops asm constraint fixes

[H. Peter Anvin]

Jan Beulich wrote:
> I'd really like understand, though, what the policy of (not) having a
> "memory" clobber in these operations is - currently, this appears to
> be totally inconsistent. Also, many comments of the non-atomic
> functions say those may also be re-ordered - this contradicts the use
> of "asm volatile" in there, which again I'd like to understand.

In general, proper "m" constraints are better than "memory" clobbers, 
since they give gcc more information.  Note that the "m" constraint 
doesn't actually have to be *manifest* in the assembly string.

	-hpa
--
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/