I've been discussing it with some other kernel and GCC people, and they think
that only "memory" is required.
> What are the reasons against mentioning sem->count directly as a "=m"
> reference? This makes the whole thing less fragile and no more dependent
> on the memory layout of the structure.
Apart from the risk of breaking it, you mean? Well, "=m" seems to reserve an
extra register to hold a second copy of the semaphore address, probably since
it thinks EAX might get clobbered.
Also, as a minor point, it probably ought to be "+m" not "=m".
David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
