lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [OT] 'volatile' in userspace
    On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 10:40:06PM +0200, Rutger Nijlunsing wrote:
    > > So if a userspace progam ever uses volatile, it's almost certainly a
    > > bug, one way or another.
    >
    > Without 'volatile' and disabling optimizations altogether, how do we
    > prevent gcc from optimizing away pointers? As can be seen on
    > http://wiki.rubygarden.org/Ruby/page/show/GCAndExtensions (at
    > 'Compiler over-optimisations and "volatile"'), volatile is used to
    > prevent a specific type of optimization. This is because of the
    > garbage collector, which scans the stack and registers to find
    > referenced objects. So you don't want local variables containing
    > references to objects optimized away.

    Well, if you look at the Wiki, it admits that this is a bug:

    (Warning: This section is not strictly correct. volatile
    instructs the C compiler that it should not do certain
    optimisations to code that accesses the variable - the value
    cannot be stored in a register and must be read from memory
    each time it is accessed. It is still perfectly legal for the
    compiler to overwrite the VALUE's stack location with other
    data, if the compiler decides there are no further uses of the
    VALUE. Fortunately, a side effect of volatile in common C
    compilers like GCC and Visual Studio is to prevent the
    dangerous optimisation described above. The Ruby source itself
    uses volatile for this purpose, so it is an "accepted hack"
    for Ruby C extensions.)

    "Accepted hack" is basically another way of saying bug. Some day GCC
    will be made smart enough to optimize the use of str on the stack, and
    then the Ruby will be screwed. (Mental note to self: don't use Ruby
    in any future project.)

    This is really an architectural bug. RSTRING() should have explicitly
    bumped a use pointer, which the C code should have then explicitly
    decremented, to protect the underlying pointer from getting GC'ed
    unexpectedly. It would have made RSTRING() more difficult to use, but
    that's the price you pay when you try to graft a garbage-collected
    paradigm into C code, since the C language really was never designed
    for it.

    So this would tend to confirm the rule of thumb: use of "volatile" in
    a userspace progam tends to indicate a bug.

    - Ted
    -
    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: 2006-07-10 05:45    [W:4.126 / U:0.328 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site