Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 15:15:22 +0200
From: Szabolcs Nagy <>
Subject: Re: Fixing atomic asm constraints

* Rich Felker <> [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.