Re: [patch] spinlocks: remove 'volatile'

On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 07:59 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> >
> > * Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> I wonder if we should remove the "volatile". There really isn't
> >> anything _good_ that gcc can do with it, but we've seen gcc code
> >> generation do stupid things before just because "volatile" seems to
> >> just disable even proper normal working.
> 
> Then GCC must be fixed. The keyword volatile is correct. It should
> force the compiler to read the variable every time it's used.

this is not really what the C standard says.



> This is not pointless. If GCC generates bad code, tell the
> GCC people. The volatile keyword is essential.

no the "volatile" semantics are vague, trecherous and evil. It's a LOT
better to insert the well defined "barrier()" in the right places.


-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [patch] spinlocks: remove 'volatile'
    • From: Mark Lord <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] spinlocks: remove 'volatile'
    • From: "linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [patch] uninline init_waitqueue_*() functions
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] uninline init_waitqueue_*() functions
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] uninline init_waitqueue_*() functions
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] uninline init_waitqueue_*() functions
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] uninline init_waitqueue_*() functions
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] uninline init_waitqueue_*() functions
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] uninline init_waitqueue_*() functions
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] uninline init_waitqueue_*() functions
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] uninline init_waitqueue_*() functions
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] uninline init_waitqueue_*() functions
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • [patch] spinlocks: remove 'volatile'
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] spinlocks: remove 'volatile'
    • From: "linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: AVR32 architecture patch against Linux 2.6.18-rc1 available
• Next by Date: Re: AVR32 architecture patch against Linux 2.6.18-rc1 available
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch] spinlocks: remove 'volatile'
• Next by thread: Re: [patch] spinlocks: remove 'volatile'
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]