[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Is gcc thread-unsafe?

    On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Andrew Haley wrote:
    > Bart Van Assche writes:
    > > Andrew, do you know whether gcc currently contains any optimization
    > > that interchanges the order of accesses to non-volatile variables
    > > and function calls ?
    > It sure does.

    Note that doing so is perfectly fine.

    But only for local variables that haven't had their addresses taken.

    The fact is, those kinds of variables really *are* special. They are
    provably not accessible from any other context, and re-ordering them (or
    doing anything AT ALL to them - the most basic and very important
    optimization is caching them in registers, of course) is always purely an
    internal compiler issue.

    But if gcc re-orders functions calls with *other* memory accesses, gcc is
    totally broken. I doubt it does that. It would break on all but the most
    trivial programs, and it would be a clear violation of even standard C.

    HOWEVER: the bug that started this thread isn't even "reordering
    accesses", it's *adding* accesses that weren't there (and please don't mix
    this up with "volatile", since volatile is a totally unrelated issue and
    has nothing what-so-ever to do with anything).

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-10-26 19:29    [W:0.029 / U:5.700 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site