On 06.09.2008 23:22, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > On 06.09.2008 22:34, Stefan Reinauer wrote: > >> Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: >> >> >>> v3 uses all combinations of __asm__, asm, __volatile__, volatile and >>> single variations to declare inline asm statements. "asm" is a GNU C >>> extension, while volatile is ANSI C. That means: >>> - __volatile__ can be replaced by volatile unless you use a pure K&R >>> compiler. >>> - asm is not a reserved keyword and should be replaced by __asm__. >>> As a bonus, grepping for __asm__ returns less hits than asm because asm >>> is also used as a normal word in comments. >>> >>> >>> >> What are the implications of this? I think we should either go __asm__ >> __volatile__ or asm volatile for the sake of looking at the code without >> eye cancer, but not mix it. >> >> We're absolutely gcc specific, so discussing about asm not being >> reserved sounds a bit vain. Also, is __asm__ reserved? Reserved by whom? >> I know more compilers that know about asm than __asm__ if we're really >> trying to become non-GNU-centric. >> >> What's the goal of your patch? >> >> > > Two goals: > 1. __volatile__ is pointless since 1983 (ANSI-C). No idea why anyone > uses it. > 2. Neither __asm__ nor asm are reserved. Grepping for asm turns up lots > of stuff that is not inline asm, so using __asm__ eases grepping. > > If you prefer asm volatile, tell me. I'll prepare an updated patch. >
Stefan, do you prefer "asm volatile" or "__asm__ __volatile__"? From your mail, it seems you prefer "asm volatile", but I want to make sure I get it right. This patch has been pending for quite a while and it would be great if I could get rid of it. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
