[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [avr-libc-dev] Should cli() imply a memory barrier?
From: |
Paulo Marques |
Subject: |
Re: [avr-libc-dev] Should cli() imply a memory barrier? |
Date: |
Tue, 08 Jun 2010 20:43:53 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) |
Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> As Paulo Marques wrote:
>
>> One thing we could do for the programmers that want to use the "raw"
>> cli version and know what they are doing is to keep a "__cli" or
>> "__raw_cli" version (or some other name) that just emits a single
>> "cli" instruction.
>
> I guess it's simple enough then to just write
>
> asm volatile("cli");
The same argument would hold for "nop", no?
And the counter argument is probably the same: the C code looks better
without "asm volatile" in the middle ;)
Anyway, I don't have strong feelings either way, so it's really your
call if it's worth it or not...
--
Paulo Marques
Software Development Department - Grupo PIE, S.A.
Phone: +351 252 290600, Fax: +351 252 290601
Web: www.grupopie.com
I have not yet begun to procrastinate
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Should cli() imply a memory barrier?, Jan Waclawek, 2010/06/08
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Should cli() imply a memory barrier?, Joerg Wunsch, 2010/06/08
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Should cli() imply a memory barrier?, Jan Waclawek, 2010/06/08
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Should cli() imply a memory barrier?, Joerg Wunsch, 2010/06/08
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Should cli() imply a memory barrier?, Jan Waclawek, 2010/06/08
- RE: [avr-libc-dev] Should cli() imply a memory barrier?, Weddington, Eric, 2010/06/08
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Should cli() imply a memory barrier?, Joerg Wunsch, 2010/06/09