Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 12 May 2007 11:06:27 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3 |
| |
Stefan Richter wrote: > H. Peter Anvin wrote: > [slightly off topic: GCCisms in Linux kernel] >> It contains *many* constructs that are not defined in, for >> example, C99, and it would in fact be impossible to write the Linux >> kernel using only C99-compliant constructs. > > True. On the other hand, it is possible to keep large parts of the > kernel independent of compiler implementation details. And it is not > only possible but also beneficial, e.g. because the compiler's > implementation changes over time.
It is, but this is not likely to be one of those things.
Either way, I fully agree with the following (from Jeff):
> jimmy bahuleyan wrote: >> i believe, the doc here is pretty unambiguous regarding the fact that >> volatile should be avoided. And as Stefan pointed out, anyone who feels >> the need to use, must surely _know_ what he is doing & hence is in a >> position t make that decision > > Honestly, the above quoted paragraph states the situation better than any long, complicated document.
-hpa - 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/
| |