linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Improve atomic.h implementation robustness

To: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve atomic.h implementation robustness
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 00:01:02 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: Dominic Sweetman <dom@mips.com>, Thiemo Seufer <ica2_ts@csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Nigel Stephens <nigel@mips.com>, David Ung <davidu@mips.com>
In-reply-to: <20041201233940.GA15116@linux-mips.org>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20041201070014.GG3225@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <16813.39660.948092.328493@doms-laptop.algor.co.uk> <20041201123336.GA5612@linux-mips.org> <Pine.LNX.4.58L.0412012136480.13579@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl> <20041201233940.GA15116@linux-mips.org>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Ralf Baechle wrote:

> >  No surprise as the "o" constraint doesn't mean anything particular for
> > MIPS.  All addresses are offsettable -- there is no addressing mode that
> > would preclude it, so "o" is exactly the same as "m".
> 
> This is what the gcc docs say:
[...]
> So it is not the same as "m".

 It is the same *for* MIPS.  Not in general.

  Maciej

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>