I m not against, I would go with your final version too. Thanks !
On 20 November 2017 at 22:36, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I wrote:
> > I still dare to doubt whether you've tested this, because AFAICS
> > the operand numbering is wrong. The "r"(lock) operand is number 3
> > given these operand declarations, not number 2.
>
> Oh, my apologies, scratch that. Evidently I put in the "+m"(*lock)
> operand and confused myself about what was what.
>
> I still think the form I proposed is better style though.
>
> regards, tom lane
>