![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sat, 2006-07-08 at 05:45 -0400, Joe Korty wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 11:54:10PM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote: > > That's all theoretical though. Today, gcc's volatile does > > not follow the C standard on modern hardware. Bummer. > > It'd be low-performance anyway though. > > But gcc would follow the standard if it emitted a 'lock' > insn on every volatile reference. nope that's not nearly enough for pci MMIO space for example, nor for any of the weakly ordered architectures. - 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: 2006-07-08 09:55 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||