![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 07:59 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote: > On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote: > > > >> I wonder if we should remove the "volatile". There really isn't > >> anything _good_ that gcc can do with it, but we've seen gcc code > >> generation do stupid things before just because "volatile" seems to > >> just disable even proper normal working. > > Then GCC must be fixed. The keyword volatile is correct. It should > force the compiler to read the variable every time it's used. this is not really what the C standard says. > This is not pointless. If GCC generates bad code, tell the > GCC people. The volatile keyword is essential. no the "volatile" semantics are vague, trecherous and evil. It's a LOT better to insert the well defined "barrier()" in the right places. - 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: 2006-07-06 14:03 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||