Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: spinlock | From | David Wragg <> | Date | 03 Dec 1999 00:52:51 +0000 |
| |
Marc Lehmann <pcg@opengroup.org> writes: > On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 11:56:56PM +0000, David Wragg > <dpw@doc.ic.ac.uk> wrote: > > It might seem like I'm harping on about the C standard. It's not > >directly relevant to gcc as it is used in kernel programming, but it > >does constrain the gcc developers, so it can be useful for predicting > > The conclusion from the gcc developers was that this property (single > instruction) is quite useless in practise (you can't guarantee it > under most circumstances), and it is not too useful either (e.g. smp).
Oh, I wasn't talking about the single instruction thing, except to say that the standard doesn't require it. In the quoted text, was trying to refer back to some of my earlier comments; sorry if that was unclear.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |