[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
* H. Peter Anvin ( wrote:
> Satyam Sharma wrote:
> >
> > Because volatile is ill-defined? Or actually, *undefined* (well,
> > implementation-defined is as good as that)? It's *so* _vague_,
> > one doesn't _feel_ like using it at all!
> >
> Sorry, that's just utter crap. Linux isn't written in some mythical C
> which only exists in standard document, it is written in a particular
> subset of GNU C. "volatile" is well enough defined in that context, it
> is just frequently misused.

Where? I don't ever recall seeing something that defines Gcc's behaviour
with volatile on different architectures.
I know on some architectures gcc generates different instructions
for volatile accesses (e.g. load acquire/store release on IA64); I'd
be pleasently surprised if gcc's behaviour was consistent accross

-----Open up your eyes, open up your mind, open up your code -------
/ Dr. David Alan Gilbert | Running GNU/Linux on Alpha,68K| Happy \
\ gro.gilbert @ | MIPS,x86,ARM,SPARC,PPC & HPPA | In Hex /
\ _________________________|_____ |_______/
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-05-12 21:59    [W:0.044 / U:9.980 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site