From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alessandro Rubini <rubini-list@gnudd.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 00:10:04 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH v2] ARM: Avoid compiler optimization for
 usages of readb, writeb and friends.
In-Reply-To: <4D1B0228.7000608@googlemail.com>
References: <4D1B0228.7000608@googlemail.com>
	<1292711230-3234-1-git-send-email-holler@ahsoftware.de>
	<20101222080206.A0CA3EA652A@gemini.denx.de>
Message-ID: <20101229231004.GA17999@mail.gnudd.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Dirk Behme:
> Just for the record:
> 
> The trick is to ensure that the __arch_putx() containing the volatile 
> is not the last statement in the GCC statement-expression. So, using 
> something like
> 
> #define writeb(v,c)         ({ __iowmb(); __arch_putb(v,c); v;})
> 
> (note the additional 'v;') should result in correct code, too.

Yes, that's good. Also "0" may work, and may be more readable, (or not,
according to who reads it).

> The patches sent by Wolfgang and Alexander using
> 
> #define writeb(v,c)	do { __iowmb(); __arch_putb(v,c); } while (0)
> 
> do the same with a slightly different syntax, so these patches are 
> fine, too.

It's not just different syntax, it's different semantics.

The ({...})  trick turns statements into expressions, while the "do
{...} while(0)" does not.  I'd better not forbid statements like

	while (reg = readb(addr), reg != VALUE) { .... }

or

	if (readb(addr) == VALUE) { ... } 

or 
	swtich (readb(addr)) { ... }
 
While I agree they may in general not be clean, I can forsee
meaningful uses. Moreover, I'd better allow expression-looking macros
to really behave like expressions -- otherwise error messages are quite
hard to understand for the unaquainted.

IMHO, the only reason to use "do {} while(0)" over statemente
expressions is being portable but in u-boot we are gcc-specific
anyways.

/alessandro