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

> > You're point about reordering "asm volatile" constructs differs depending
> > on -mvolatile-asm-stop or -mno-volatile-asm-stop, however.
> >
> Erm, that seems to be ia64 specific, and I have no idea what adding a
> "stop bit" implies. Can you set even or odd parity too?

It is analogous with a sequence point for ia64. But, as you mentioned, it
is ia64 specific so your comment about "asm volatile" constructs not being
reordered is always appropriate outside of ia64 specific code but may not
apply to ia64 if we ever compiled with -mvolatile-asm-stop. If we do not
compile with that option, the behavior is unspecified. I don't think
we'll be adding -mvolatile-asm-stop support any time soon so your warning
certainly is appropriate for all code at this time.

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: 2007-05-09 00:23    [W:0.069 / U:4.524 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site