On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 07:26:13PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> >Robert Hancock <[email protected]> writes:
> >>You don't need volatile in that case, rmb() can be used.
> >rmb() invalidates all compiler assumptions, it can be much slower.
It does not invalidate /all/ assumptions.
> Yes, why would you use rmb() when a read of a volatile generates optimal
> code?
Read of a volatile is guaranteed to generate the least optimal code.
That's what volatile does, guarantee no optimization of that particular
access.
Jeff
-
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]
