From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8080 invoked by alias); 30 Mar 2004 20:03:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 8072 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2004 20:03:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com) (66.187.237.200) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Mar 2004 20:03:44 -0000 Received: from frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2UK3hT4021942; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:03:43 -0800 Received: (from rth@localhost) by frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i2UK3hZm021940; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:03:43 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com: rth set sender to rth@redhat.com using -f Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 01:45:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson To: Jim Wilson Cc: "Ashok.A" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Clarification Req: Regarding "memory" clobber for cache operation is required (?) Message-ID: <20040330200343.GA21903@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Richard Henderson , Jim Wilson , "Ashok.A" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <20040326063407.20385.qmail@web12008.mail.yahoo.com> <1080601295.2018.77.camel@leaf.tuliptree.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1080601295.2018.77.camel@leaf.tuliptree.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg01726.txt.bz2 On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 03:01:35PM -0800, Jim Wilson wrote: > It looks like the linux sources use volatile instead of memory > clobbers. Volatile is a stronger statement than a memory clobber. No, it makes a completely different statement. r~