lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] C undefined behavior fix
    On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 02:24:35PM +0100, Bernard Dautrevaux wrote:
    >
    > Note however that some may not have noticed, in the volatile-using examples,
    > that there is a difference between a "pointer to volatile char" and a
    > "volatile pointer to char"; the former, defined as "volatile char*" does not
    > help in the case of the RELOC macro, while the latter, written "char
    > *volatile" (note that volatile is now AFTER the '*', not before) is a sure
    > fix as the semantics of "volatile" ensure that the compiler will NO MORE use
    > the value it PREVIOUSLY knows was the one of the pointer.

    One problem I ran into considering 'char *volatile' was this one: the
    compiler is supposed to disable certain optimizations involving
    registerization and such, but isn't it still allowed to do constant
    folding? That would eliminate the pointer from the intermediate code
    altogether, and so the volatile qualifier would be quickly forgotten.
    No fixo breako.

    Nothing's taking the pointer's address, so the compiler _will_ be able
    to prove that (in a sensible universe) no other thread, interrupt,
    kernel code or Angered Rain God will be able to find our pointer--much
    less change it.


    Jeroen

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:15    [W:3.354 / U:0.036 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site