On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:33 PM, tip-bot for H. Peter Anvin
<hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
quoted text
>
> x86: Add memory modify constraints to xchg() and cmpxchg()

Ack. I assume this doesn't really change the code generated? At least
not with a gcc that honors the whole memory clobber thing properly?

I also suspect that we can/should get rid of the __xg() thing - it was
there just to make sure gcc didn't see the memory read as a single
word and tried to optimize it. With the "+m" it probably doesn't
matter any more (don't know if it ever did)

               Linus
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/