Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 15:15:22 +0200 From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Fixing atomic asm constraints * Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> [2014-07-11 18:53:26 -0400]: > If we do opt for volatile asm everywhere, should we also use the > "+m"(ptr) operand form just for the sake of being explicit that the > asm accesses the atomic object? i'd use "+m"(*ptr) to be explicit and i agree that volatile is not needed but should not hurt either
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.