Richard Henderson wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 02:44:15PM -0800, Michael Eager wrote:
> > Well, that's surprising.  I was able to get rid of all of the
> > other changes.
> 
> Not ok.  It's not *required* that the compiler reduce all of the
> addresses for you.  In particular, this is more likely to fail
> without optimization.
> 
> > -       : "m" (*__mem), "r"(__val));
> > +       : "m" (*__mem), "r"(__val), "r"(__mem));
> 
> In addition to just adding the new argument, you have to actually
> use it in the assembly.

Here's yet one more version of the patch.

--
Michael Eager     eager@mvista.com	408-328-8426	
MontaVista Software, Inc. 1237 E. Arques Ave., Sunnyvale, CA  94085