On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:33 PM, tip-bot for H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > x86: Add memory modify constraints to xchg() and cmpxchg() Ack. I assume this doesn't really change the code generated? At least not with a gcc that honors the whole memory clobber thing properly? I also suspect that we can/should get rid of the __xg() thing - it was there just to make sure gcc didn't see the memory read as a single word and tried to optimize it. With the "+m" it probably doesn't matter any more (don't know if it ever did) Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html