[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC/PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil
    David Rientjes wrote:
    > Since 'volatile' has two different semantics depending on the context in
    > which it is used, this warning should be appended to include the fact that
    > it is legitimate to use for inline assembly.

    It's probably worth noting that "asm volatile (...)" doesn't mean what
    many people think it means: specifically, it *does not* prevent the asm
    from being reordered with respect to the surrounding code. It may not
    even prevent it from being reordered with respect to other asm
    volatiles. *All* it means is that the asm code will be emitted even if
    the compiler doesn't think its results will be used. Note that an
    "asm()" with no outputs is implicitly "asm volatile()" - on the grounds
    that it would be otherwise useless as far as gcc can tell.

    If you need to guarantee ordering of asm statements, you must do it
    explicitly, with either a "memory" clobber, or some finer-grain
    serialization variable (like the _proxy_pda stuff). It would be useful
    if you could tell gcc "I'm passing this variable to the asm for
    serialization purposes, but there's no need to generate any explicit
    references to it", but as far as I know there's no support for that.

    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: 2007-05-08 23:23    [W:0.030 / U:0.048 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site