[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:
    > 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.

    Sounds like it's referring to micro-architectural reordering, which is
    distinct from compiler reordering. In other words, even if you
    specified "-mvolatile-asm-stop" I would assume that the compiler could
    still reorder the asm statements. Am I right, or should I read more
    into the manual description than it actually says?

    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 00:31    [W:0.019 / U:6.844 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site