Rietveld Code Review Tool
Help | Bug tracker | Discussion group | Source code | Sign in
(1516)

Issue 4571059: code review 4571059: sync/atomic: fix arm check64 bug (Closed)

Can't Edit
Can't Publish+Mail
Start Review
Created:
12 years, 11 months ago by adg
Modified:
12 years, 11 months ago
Reviewers:
r, ality, r2
CC:
rsc, golang-dev
Visibility:
Public.

Description

sync/atomic: fix arm check64 bug

Patch Set 1 #

Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+4 lines, -4 lines) Patch
M src/pkg/sync/atomic/asm_arm.s View 1 chunk +4 lines, -4 lines 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 5
adg
Hello r, rsc (cc: golang-dev@googlegroups.com), I'd like you to review this change to https://go.googlecode.com/hg/
12 years, 11 months ago (2011-06-10 03:50:16 UTC) #1
adg
*** Submitted as http://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=f5bb473f1306 *** sync/atomic: fix arm check64 bug R=r, rsc CC=golang-dev http://codereview.appspot.com/4571059
12 years, 11 months ago (2011-06-10 03:50:27 UTC) #2
r
LGTM
12 years, 11 months ago (2011-06-10 03:50:56 UTC) #3
ality
Isn't SP the same as R13? Why does using R5 instead of R3 fix the ...
12 years, 11 months ago (2011-06-10 04:14:45 UTC) #4
r2
12 years, 11 months ago (2011-06-10 04:15:52 UTC) #5
On Jun 10, 2011, at 2:14 PM, Anthony Martin wrote:

> Isn't SP the same as R13?

Ken's SP is a pseudoregister.

> Why does using R5 instead of R3 fix the bug?

ldrexp  uses R3.

> Not doubting, just curious.

-rob


Sign in to reply to this message.

Powered by Google App Engine
RSS Feeds Recent Issues | This issue
This is Rietveld f62528b