[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    [from the cache]
    ©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean