On Tue, 8 May 2007 19:38:56 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 8 May 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> > "volatile" used on a gcc asm extension is different, granted.
> > It's not even a C-language "volatile" keyword AFAICT, so it doesn't
> > apply in this context.
> >
>
> Using 'volatile' for an asm construct certainly is a keyword; in fact, C99
> defines 'volatile' as a token which is reserved for use as a keyword.
touche'
> > Anyway, how is this slightly modified title?
> >
> > +***** "volatile" considered useless and evil: Just Say NO! *****
> > +
> > +Do not use the C-language "volatile" keyword on kernel data
> > +(extracted from lkml emails from Linus)
> >
>
> It's still ambiguous. A much more explicit title that nobody could argue
> with would be "do not use the 'volatile' keyword as a type qualifier for
> an object."
OK, I can accept that.
---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
-
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]
