[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
    * H. Peter Anvin ( wrote:
    > Satyam Sharma wrote:
    > >
    > > Because volatile is ill-defined? Or actually, *undefined* (well,
    > > implementation-defined is as good as that)? It's *so* _vague_,
    > > one doesn't _feel_ like using it at all!
    > >
    > Sorry, that's just utter crap. Linux isn't written in some mythical C
    > which only exists in standard document, it is written in a particular
    > subset of GNU C. "volatile" is well enough defined in that context, it
    > is just frequently misused.

    Where? I don't ever recall seeing something that defines Gcc's behaviour
    with volatile on different architectures.
    I know on some architectures gcc generates different instructions
    for volatile accesses (e.g. load acquire/store release on IA64); I'd
    be pleasently surprised if gcc's behaviour was consistent accross

    -----Open up your eyes, open up your mind, open up your code -------
    / Dr. David Alan Gilbert | Running GNU/Linux on Alpha,68K| Happy \
    \ gro.gilbert @ | MIPS,x86,ARM,SPARC,PPC & HPPA | In Hex /
    \ _________________________|_____ |_______/
    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: 2007-05-12 21:59    [W:0.046 / U:36.852 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site