Harvey Harrison wrote:
#define _ASM_INC " incl "
_ASM_INC "%0"
Not sure if you were just tossing a space on the end of my example,
but do you also put a leading space on the " incl " in addition to
the trailing space?
That is what I have, again, just to make mistakes harder.
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 15:48 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Harvey Harrison wrote:
> >
> > Do you have a stylistic preference between these two options:
> >
> > Option 1) Rely on CPP string constant concatenation
> >
> > // possibly include trailing space here to avoid remembering
> > // leading
Harvey Harrison wrote:
Do you have a stylistic preference between these two options:
Option 1) Rely on CPP string constant concatenation
// possibly include trailing space here to avoid remembering
// leading space on the register names
# define _ASM_INC "incl"
static inline void
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 14:48 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> No differences except for the defintion of local_add_return on X86_64.
> >> The X86_32 version is just fine as it is protected with ifdef
> >> CONFIG_M386 so
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No differences except for the defintion of local_add_return on X86_64.
The X86_32 version is just fine as it is protected with ifdef
CONFIG_M386 so use it directly.
thanks, i've applied your 4 patches to x86.git.
btw., now
* Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No differences except for the defintion of local_add_return on X86_64.
> The X86_32 version is just fine as it is protected with ifdef
> CONFIG_M386 so use it directly.
thanks, i've applied your 4 patches to x86.git.
btw., now that we have a
No differences except for the defintion of local_add_return on
X86_64. The X86_32 version is just fine as it is protected with
ifdef CONFIG_M386 so use it directly.
Signed-off-by: Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
include/asm-x86/local.h| 149
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Harvey Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No differences except for the defintion of local_add_return on X86_64.
The X86_32 version is just fine as it is protected with ifdef
CONFIG_M386 so use it directly.
thanks, i've applied your 4 patches to x86.git.
btw., now that
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 14:48 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Harvey Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No differences except for the defintion of local_add_return on X86_64.
The X86_32 version is just fine as it is protected with ifdef
CONFIG_M386 so use it directly.
Harvey Harrison wrote:
Do you have a stylistic preference between these two options:
Option 1) Rely on CPP string constant concatenation
// possibly include trailing space here to avoid remembering
// leading space on the register names
# define _ASM_INC incl
static inline void
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 15:48 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Harvey Harrison wrote:
Do you have a stylistic preference between these two options:
Option 1) Rely on CPP string constant concatenation
// possibly include trailing space here to avoid remembering
// leading space on the
Harvey Harrison wrote:
#define _ASM_INC incl
_ASM_INC %0
Not sure if you were just tossing a space on the end of my example,
but do you also put a leading space on the incl in addition to
the trailing space?
That is what I have, again, just to make mistakes harder.
No differences except for the defintion of local_add_return on
X86_64. The X86_32 version is just fine as it is protected with
ifdef CONFIG_M386 so use it directly.
Signed-off-by: Harvey Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
include/asm-x86/local.h| 149 ++-
* Harvey Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No differences except for the defintion of local_add_return on X86_64.
The X86_32 version is just fine as it is protected with ifdef
CONFIG_M386 so use it directly.
thanks, i've applied your 4 patches to x86.git.
btw., now that we have a single
14 matches
Mail list logo
