[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Improve atomic.h implementation robustness

To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve atomic.h implementation robustness
From: Ralf Baechle <>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 00:39:41 +0100
Cc: Dominic Sweetman <>, Thiemo Seufer <>,, Nigel Stephens <>, David Ung <>
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <>
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 09:50:45PM +0000, Maciej W. Rozycki 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:

     A memory operand is allowed, but only if the address is
     "offsettable".  This means that adding a small integer (actually,
     the width in bytes of the operand, as determined by its machine
     mode) may be added to the address and the result is also a valid
     memory address.

     For example, an address which is constant is offsettable; so is an
     address that is the sum of a register and a constant (as long as a
     slightly larger constant is also within the range of
     address-offsets supported by the machine); but an autoincrement or
     autodecrement address is not offsettable.  More complicated
     indirect/indexed addresses may or may not be offsettable depending
     on the other addressing modes that the machine supports.

So it is not the same as "m".


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