Re: quandary with pthreads

[Thomas Pfaff <tpfaff at gmx dot net>]

On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 01:37:37AM -0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >Ok, attached is what I'd try if I was set up to try it.  I've found that you
> >pretty much always need the "volatile" after the __asm__, or the newer gccs want
> >to optimize your assembly away, even if they should be able to tell that you've
> >got side-effects.
>
> AFAIK, there is a volatile after the __asm__.
>
> How about a standard unified diff so that it is easy to see what you changed?

I didn't specified it when i put the asm stuff it into a c source file.
You might have a look at the version that i created.

AFAICT the only changes between Garys inline asm version and mine is the
addition of the missing volatile.
Anyway, i have attached a diff.

Thomas

Attachment: winbase.patch
Description: Text document