locking problem with mips atomicity

[Phil Edwards]

On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 03:01:33PM -0800, Michael Eager wrote:
> Phil Edwards wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 05:01:33PM -0800, Michael Eager wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Why the in-out constraint on __mem?  You don't modify %2.
> > >
> > > OK, changed it to only input.
> > 
> > Since it seems to be the latest, this is the version I'll check in to the
> > trunk.  There isn't an open regression PR for this (is there?), so it'll
> > be queued for 3.4.1.
> 
> It's not a regression.   No PR.  I can create one if you want.

If there's no regression, then I (personally) wouldn't bother, but one of
the bugmasters may request otherwise.

If I don't remember to apply it once 3.4 is out, please remind me.
I'm trying to keep all the queued-up patches in one place, but some may
slip through.

I've just applied the patch to the trunk.

-- 
Behind everything some further thing is found, forever; thus the tree behind
the bird, stone beneath soil, the sun behind Urth.  Behind our efforts, let
there be found our efforts.
              - Ascian saying, as related by Loyal to the Group of Seventeen