On Fri, 7 Jul 2006, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote: > > This is a bait and switch argument. The code was displayed to show > the compiler output, not an example of good coding practice. NO IT IS NOT. The whole point of my argument is simple: > > "'volatile' is useless. The things it did 30 years ago are much > > more complex these days, and need to be tied to much more > > detailed rules that depend on the actual particular problem, > > rather than one keyword to the compiler that doesn't actually > > give enough information for the compiler to do anything useful" And dammit, if you cannot admit that, then you're not worth discussing with. "volatile" is useless. It's a big hammer in a world where the nails aren't nails any more, they are screws, thumb-tacks, and spotwelding. It still makes a difference for code generation, OF COURSE. But it's the wrong thing to use. Linus - 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: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] spinlocks: remove 'volatile'
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] spinlocks: remove 'volatile'
- 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]>
- Re: [patch] spinlocks: remove 'volatile'
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] spinlocks: remove 'volatile'
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] spinlocks: remove 'volatile'
- From: "linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] spinlocks: remove 'volatile'
- From: Krzysztof Halasa <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] spinlocks: remove 'volatile'
- From: "linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] spinlocks: remove 'volatile'
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] spinlocks: remove 'volatile'
- From: "linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] uninline init_waitqueue_*() functions
- Prev by Date: Re: swsusp / suspend2 reliability
- Next by Date: Re: Kernel 2.6.17 and RAID5 Grow Problem (critical section backup)
- Previous by thread: Re: [patch] spinlocks: remove 'volatile'
- Next by thread: Re: [patch] spinlocks: remove 'volatile'
- Index(es):
 |