lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jul]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [patch] spinlocks: remove 'volatile'
    From
    Date
    On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 07:59 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
    > On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
    > >
    > >> I wonder if we should remove the "volatile". There really isn't
    > >> anything _good_ that gcc can do with it, but we've seen gcc code
    > >> generation do stupid things before just because "volatile" seems to
    > >> just disable even proper normal working.
    >
    > Then GCC must be fixed. The keyword volatile is correct. It should
    > force the compiler to read the variable every time it's used.

    this is not really what the C standard says.



    > This is not pointless. If GCC generates bad code, tell the
    > GCC people. The volatile keyword is essential.

    no the "volatile" semantics are vague, trecherous and evil. It's a LOT
    better to insert the well defined "barrier()" in the right places.


    -
    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: 2006-07-06 14:03    [W:0.025 / U:0.144 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site