Re: Possible regression in arm/io.h

[Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1023 bytes --]

On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 16:27 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 04:04:46PM +0100, Bastian Hecht wrote:
> > >> > Ok, I'll have a look at the impact of moving exclusively to "Q" when I get a
> > >> > chance. Which toolchain are you using?
> > >>
> > >> gcc version 4.6.3 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5)
> > >> For a more verbose info take a look at the bug report link.
> > >
> > > Ok, thanks. One other thing you could try while I try to find a copy of that
> > > toolchain is changing the "+" modifier to an "=", like I proposed in this
> > > version of the patch:
> > 
> > So if alter it to fit to your patch scheme the result is:
> 
> Sorry, the change wasn't as trivial as I thought -- you have to reorder the
> constraints because an output becomes an input for the load accessors. I
> tried it myself and it doesn't fix the issue (I can reproduce it now).

Any progress with this? Do we end up with gcc 4.6+ - uncompilable MTD
drivers in 3.7?

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]