Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 12 May 2007 12:32:15 +0530 | From | "Satyam Sharma" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3 |
| |
On 5/12/07, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> 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.
Of course, volatile _is_ defined (well, _anything_ that is implemented _is_ defined, after all) in the context of GNU C, and if you're saying that the kernel (and all its subsystems) is and should _continue_ to be (the purpose of this document) written within that context, then that's your opinion and I would not disagree with you. If you do prefer to continue using that dialect, then I wouldn't stop you either.
Personally, I'd prefer writing in a slightly more portable / larger context (using well-defined and understood APIs), thank you, and hope you'd allow me to do so myself.
Coming back to the document, we do need to document / find consensus on the "preferred" way to do similar business in the kernel, and my opinion as far as that is concerned is to shun volatile wherever possible (which includes the case originally discussed above).
Satyam - 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/
| |