![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
>>>> Part of the motivation here is to fix heisenbugs. If I knew where >>>> they >>> >>> >>> By the same token we should probably disable optimisations >>> altogether since that too can create heisenbugs. >> Almost everything is a tradeoff; and so is this. I don't >> believe most people would find disabling all compiler >> optimisations an acceptable price to pay for some peace >> of mind. > > So why is this a good tradeoff? It certainly is better than disabling all compiler optimisations! > I also think that just adding things to APIs in the hope it might fix > up some bugs isn't really a good road to go down. Where do you stop? I look at it the other way: keeping the "volatile" semantics in atomic_XXX() (or adding them to it, whatever) helps _prevent_ bugs; certainly most people expect that behaviour, and also that behaviour is *needed* in some places and no other interface provides that functionality. [some confusion about barriers wrt atomics snipped] Segher - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-08-16 19:41 [W:1.802 / U:0.380 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||