Re: [PATCH] x86: fix inline assembly constraints

[H. Peter Anvin]

Jike Song wrote:
> 
> Yes, sometimes gcc did have bugs with its obscure inline asm
> conventions. But I think the change of x86-64 atomic operations should
> be OK. Anyway, the "+" constraint is more clear than a "=m" output and
>  a "m" input.
> 
> The 32-bit atomic ops were already changed to "+m".(commit
> b862f3b099f3ea672c7438c0b282ce8201d39dfc)
> 

You *THINK*.  It's very easy to *THINK* that gcc won't do something
utterly moronic, and you'd be wrong.

Just changing it for the sake of churn is pointless... if there is a
bug, then we have to take the risk anyway, but if it is already correct,
then there is no point in provoking a bug.  Not *your* bug, because your
code is correct, but gcc's bug.

FWIW, the reason that code doesn't use "+m" is because a version of gcc
which we no longer support didn't handle it.  That by itself isn't a
reason to keep it, but there is also no reason to just "tidy" it, IMNSHO.

	-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/