| 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 |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Improve atomic.h implementation robustness, Ralf Baechle |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2.6] tlbwr hazard for NEC VR4100, Thiemo Seufer |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Improve atomic.h implementation robustness, Ralf Baechle |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Improve atomic.h implementation robustness, Richard Sandiford |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |