[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?

On Aug 7 2007 15:38, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Even now, powerpc (as an example) defines atomic_t as:
> typedef struct { volatile int counter; } atomic_t
> That volatile is there precisely to force the compiler to dereference it every
> single time.

Actually, the dereference will be done once (or more often if registers
are short or the compiler does not feel like keeping it around),
and the read from memory will be done on every iteration ;-)

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: 2007-08-08 00:17    [W:0.089 / U:4.624 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site