On 26/03/15 08:00, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 25.03.15 at 18:49, wrote:
On 20/03/15 14:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
- being non-atomic, their pointer arguments shouldn't be volatile-
qualified
- their (half fake) memory operands can be a single "+m" instead of
being both an output and an input
S
>>> On 25.03.15 at 18:49, wrote:
> On 20/03/15 14:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> - being non-atomic, their pointer arguments shouldn't be volatile-
>>qualified
>> - their (half fake) memory operands can be a single "+m" instead of
>>being both an output and an input
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beu
On 20/03/15 14:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
- being non-atomic, their pointer arguments shouldn't be volatile-
qualified
- their (half fake) memory operands can be a single "+m" instead of
being both an output and an input
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
After further consideration, would it not b
- being non-atomic, their pointer arguments shouldn't be volatile-
qualified
- their (half fake) memory operands can be a single "+m" instead of
being both an output and an input
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
---
v3: Replace ADDR uses by *(int *)addr to not re-gain the volatile
qualifier.
v2
