[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:0.020 / U:187.320 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site