I m not against, I would go with your final version too. Thanks ! On 20 November 2017 at 22:36, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I wrote: > > I still dare to doubt whether you've tested this, because AFAICS > > the operand numbering is wrong. The "r"(lock) operand is number 3 > > given these operand declarations, not number 2. > > Oh, my apologies, scratch that. Evidently I put in the "+m"(*lock) > operand and confused myself about what was what. > > I still think the form I proposed is better style though. > > regards, tom lane >
