On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 14:39:43 +0200, Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 08:29 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Look at:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatile_variable
> >
> > This is just what is needed to prevent the compiler from making non working
> > code during optimization.
>
> and an entry level document at wikipedia is more important than the C
> standard ;)
>
> >
> > Also look at:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_barrier
> >
> > This is used to prevent out-of-order execution, not at all what is
> > necessary.
>
> I did not talk about memory barriers. In fact, barrier() is NOT a memory
> barrier. It's a compiler optimization barrier!
>
// Read 10 samples from 2 A/D converters.
int* ina;
int a[10];
int* inb;
int b[10];
for (int i=0; i<10; i++)
{
a[i] = *ina;
barrier();
b[i] = *inb;
}
The barrier prevents the compiler of translating this to:
for (int i=0; i<10; i++)
{
b[i] = *inb;
a[i] = *ina;
}
or even to:
for (int i=0; i<10; i++)
a[i] = *ina;
for (int i=0; i<10; i++)
b[i] = *inb;
but does not prevent it to do this:
register int tmp_a = *ina;
register int tmp_b = *inb;
for (int i=0; i<10; i++)
{
a[i] = tmp_a;
b[i] = tmp_b;
}
because nor 'ina' nor 'inb' change under what the compiler sees inside
the loop. 'volatile' prevents the compiler of do a high level cache of
*ina or *inb.
--
J.A. Magallon <jamagallon()ono!com> \ Software is like sex:
\ It's better when it's free
Mandriva Linux release 2007.0 (Cooker) for i586
Linux 2.6.17-jam01 (gcc 4.1.1 20060518 (prerelease)) #2 SMP PREEMPT Wed
-
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]
