[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC/PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> 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.
> J

The doc. should just be talking about "volatile" in C mostly.
Any asm volatile comments are "extra".

*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
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 23:29    [W:0.112 / U:0.168 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site