Re: Unidentified subject!
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 01:35:07PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think, it would be more readable if we made a ptestr/ptestw a
> macro/inline function. I'll look into it in the evening.
indeed.
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 01:35:51PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> I'd prefer this, to allow more freedom to the compiler:
>
> asm volatile (".chip 68040; ptestw (%0); chip 68k" : : "a" (addr));
is there a dot missing at the second 'chip' or is it some alternative
syntax?
Otherwise both ideas are way ahead of my code in the beauty competition :)
Bye
Richard
Reply to: