lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework
From
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> I think a major benefit of C11's memory model is that it gives a
> *precise* specification for how a compiler is allowed to optimize.

Clearly it does *not*. This whole discussion is proof of that. It's
not at all clear, and the standard apparently is at least debatably
allowing things that shouldn't be allowed. It's also a whole lot more
complicated than "volatile", so the likelihood of a compiler writer
actually getting it right - even if the standard does - is lower.
They've gotten "volatile" wrong too, after all (particularly in C++).

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-15 20:41    [W:0.218 / U:3.612 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site