[Pkg-db-devel] Re: (MIPS|amd64)/gcc-assembly mutexes [#11575]

[Clint Adams]

> > Afaik, nothing.  It's just a 64 bit register instead of a 32 bit
> > register.  It's not faster or anything.  Why is it using eax on
> > i386 and not ax or al?  After all we're just putting an unsigned
> > char in it.  Why is __r and int and not an tsl_t?

[...]

> At least in theory it is needed. Otherwise gcc could e.g. optimize away
> multiple consecutive calls to MUTEX_UNSET without other mutex accesses
> in between.

So, if there's no benefit to the amd64-only asm, we could just add
two "volatile"'s to the x86 part, and revert the aclocal bits, right?