lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: kernel + gcc 4.1 = several problems
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:47:01AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> NOBODY will guarantee you that they follow all standards to the letter.
> Some use compiler extensions knowingly, but pretty much _everybody_ ends
> up depending on subtle issues without even realizing it. It's almost
> impossible to write a real program that has no bugs, and if they don't
> show up in testing (because the compiler didn't generate buggy assembly
> code from source code that had the _potential_ for bugs), they often won't
> get fixed.
>
> The kernel does things like compare pointers across objects, and the
> kernel EXPECTS it to work. I seriously doubt that the kernel is even
> unusual in this. The common way to avoid AB-BA deadlocks in any threaded
> code (whether kernel or user space) is to just take two locks in a
> specific order, and the common way to do that for locks of the same type
> is simply to compare the addresses).
>
> The fact that this is "undefined" behaviour matters not a _whit_. Not for
> the kernel, and I bet not for a lot of other applications either.

True, but we'd better understand what assumptions we are making. I have
seen patches seriously attempting to _subtract_ unrelated pointers. And
that simply doesn't work for obvious reasons...
-
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: 2007-01-04 20:13    [W:0.056 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site