[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: gnumach FTBFS

From: Samuel Thibault
Subject: Re: gnumach FTBFS
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 18:27:14 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14

Svante Signell, le Wed 18 May 2011 17:41:50 +0200, a écrit :
> On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 17:08 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Svante Signell, le Wed 18 May 2011 16:54:24 +0200, a écrit :
> ..
> > > Is this OK? There is also a similar case in the glibc code.
> > 
> > Where?
> See below:

Ok, the same fix applies indeed.

> Changing "1" and "2" to "m" made the warnings disappear. But
> you say that this is not the correct solution. Care to explain what that
> code is doing and what the changes mean?

Well, actually in that case it'll be the same. But it's much more clear
to announce the memory as being both read&written ("+m") than announcing
it as read and also as written ("m" and "=m").

For more details, see tutorials & documentation about assembly


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]