This is the mail archive of the
java@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
RE: `asm' in natObject.cc
- From: Andrew Haley <aph at cambridge dot redhat dot com>
- To: "Boehm, Hans" <hans_boehm at hp dot com>
- Cc: "'Bryce McKinlay '" <bryce at waitaki dot otago dot ac dot nz>,"'tromey at redhat dot com '" <tromey at redhat dot com>,"'Java Discuss List '" <java at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 13:37:53 +0000 (GMT)
- Subject: RE: `asm' in natObject.cc
- References: <40700B4C02ABD5119F000090278766443BEDB4@hplex1.hpl.hp.com>
Boehm, Hans writes:
> > From: Bryce McKinlay
>
> > I'm guessing that its a libgcj bug, but a g++ bug that it doesn't get
> > reported at -O2. I'm no "asm" expert, but this fixed it for me:
>
> The "0" constraint specifies that the input argument must be in the same
> location as the zeroth output operand. This is very similar to one of the
> examples in the gcc manual. (See
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc_6.html#SEC117.) This seems more accurate
> to me than the patched version. The manual suggests that it would also be
> OK to use "+m" instead of "=m" as the constraint for the 0th operand, and
> then delete the second mention of (*addr)). If we need a workaround, I
> think that would be preferable.
That's better, I think.
> So far, I'm not convinced that there is anything wrong with natObject.cc.
Neither am I.
What is the memory clobber for?
Andrew.