Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:36:29 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [patch 134/149] x86, paravirt: Add a global synchronization point for pvclock |
| |
On 07/14/2010 12:32 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:00 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote: >> On 07/14/2010 11:18 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> >>> There are some discussions on: >>> >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg02001.html >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg00001.html >>> >>> Are they related? >>> >> >> Not directly as far as I can tell. >> >> The issue is if gcc can ever reorder, duplicate or elide a volatile >> operation (either asm volatile or a volatile-annotated memory >> reference.) In my (and Linus') opinion, this would be an incredibly >> serious bug. > > Is there a gcc bug for this? >
Are you asking for a bug report against the documentation? We're not sure what the semantics intended by the gcc team to be, which I guess is a documentation bug.
-hpa
| |