Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Here, I should obviously admit that the semantics of *(volatile int *)& aren't any neater or well-defined in the _language standard_ at all. The
standard does say (verbatim) "precisely what constitutes as access to
object of volatile-qualified type is implementation-defined", but GCC
does help us out here by doing the right thing.
Where do you get that idea?
Try a testcase (experimentally verify).
That doesn't prove anything.  Experiments can only disprove
things.

GCC manual, section 6.1, "When
is a Volatile Object Accessed?" doesn't say anything of the
kind.
True, "implementation-defined" as per the C standard _is_ supposed to 
mean
"unspecified behaviour where each implementation documents how the 
choice
is made". So ok, probably GCC isn't "documenting" this
implementation-defined behaviour which it is supposed to, but can't really
fault them much for this, probably.
GCC _is_ documenting this, namely in this section 6.1.  It doesn't
mention volatile-casted stuff.  Draw your own conclusions.


Segher

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux