lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
FromDavid Howells <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #4]
DateTue, 14 Mar 2006 20:31:57 +0000
Sergei Organov <osv@javad.com> wrote:

> "You can prevent an `asm' instruction from being deleted by writing the
> keyword `volatile' after the `asm'. [...]
> The `volatile' keyword indicates that the instruction has important
> side-effects.  GCC will not delete a volatile `asm' if it is reachable.
> (The instruction can still be deleted if GCC can prove that
> control-flow will never reach the location of the instruction.)  *Note
> that even a volatile `asm' instruction can be moved relative to other
> code, including across jump instructions.*"

Ummm... If "asm volatile" statements don't form compiler barriers, then how do
you specify a compiler barrier? Or is that what the "memory" bit in:

	#define barrier() __asm__ __volatile__("": : :"memory")

does?

David
-
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: 2006-03-14 20:34    [from the cache]
©2003-2008