[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 23:39:23 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14

Svante Signell, le Wed 18 May 2011 20:34:08 +0200, a écrit :
> > 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").
> Can you tell if the change has any effect on the produced code or not?

It doesn't change any semantic at all, so shouldn't change the code.

> At least we get rid of a lot of warnings when compiling, and according
> to the output no registers are used without the change?? Did you change
> that code, and if so how?

No code change at all, it's just another way to express the same thing.


reply via email to

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