On Wed, 9 May 2007 11:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
David Rientjes <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 May 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > Thus, any reliance on type-qualifying an object that represents an atomic
> > > or locking primitive on the keyword 'volatile' is misplaced.
> >
> > arch/foo is generally implementation specific code.
> >
>
> That's true, but what qualifies as an "access" to an object that is
> type qualified with the 'volatile' keyword is _implementation_ defined,
> meaning the behavior is defined by the compiler and not this new
> architecture you're proposing 'volatile' is appropriate for. That's pure
> C99.
arch/foo almost always supports a single compiler too - gcc. We simply
don't support anything else. We use gcc inlines and features extensively.
And who cares about such fine detail of C99, did they fix the struct copy
bug in ANSI C even ? [1]
Alan
[1] ANSI C says access to the padding fields of a struct is undefined.
ANSI C also says that struct assignment is a memcpy. Therefore struct
assignment in ANSI C is a violation of ANSI C...
At this point its a lot simpler not to care about other compilers pet
insanities or areas of the spec like volatile that are vaguer and less
credible than the output of the US congress.
-
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]
