Re: [PATCH] 2nd try: i386 rw_semaphores fix

[Andreas Franck <afranck@gmx.de>]

Hello David and people,

> I've just consulted with one of the gcc people we have here, and he says
> that
> the '"memory"' constraint should do the trick.
> 
> Do I take it that that is actually insufficient?

I don't remember exactly, it's been a while, but I think it was not
sufficient when I came up with this change. I can look at it in a few
hours.

The GCC manual is not really precise here:

> If your assembler instruction modifies memory in an unpredictable fashion,

> add `memory' to the list of clobbered registers. This will cause GNU CC to
> not keep memory values cached in registers across the assembler 
> instruction. You will also want to add the volatile keyword if the memory
> affected is not listed in the inputs or outputs of the
> asm, as the `memory' clobber does not count as a side-effect of the asm. 

So 'memory' alone won't probably do the trick, as caching is not the
problem here, but the unknown storage size of the semaphore. 

Perhaps the __voaltile__ will help, but I don't know. 

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.

Greetings,
Andreas

-- 
GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet.
http://www.gmx.net