On 03/06/15 16:17, Gedare Bloom wrote:
@@ -76,6 +77,16 @@ fls(int x)
> {
> return x ? sizeof(x) * 8 - __builtin_clz(x) : 0;
> }
>+static void
Any good reason none of the functions suggest inline?
In a source file the inline is probably superfluous. I use the inline
only to get ri
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 7:57 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
> The compiler is free to re-order load/store instructions to non-volatile
> variables around a load/store of a volatile variable. So the volatile
> generation counter is insufficent. In addition tests on a Freescale
> T4240 platform with 24
The compiler is free to re-order load/store instructions to non-volatile
variables around a load/store of a volatile variable. So the volatile
generation counter is insufficent. In addition tests on a Freescale
T4240 platform with 24 PowerPC processors showed that real memory
barriers are require
