Jerry Jiang <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 21:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
>> On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Chris Snook wrote:
>> > Some architectures currently do not declare the contents of an atomic_t to
>> > be
>> > volatile. This causes confusion since atomic_read() might not actually
>> > read anything if an optimizing compiler re-uses a value stored in a
>> > register, which can break code that loops until something external changes
>> > the value of an atomic_t.
>>
>> I'd be *much* happier with "atomic_read()" doing the "volatile" instead.
>>
>> The fact is, volatile on data structures is a bug. It's a wart in the C
>> language. It shouldn't be used.
>
> Why? It's a wart! Is it due to unclear C standard on volatile related point?
>
> Why the *volatile-accesses-in-code* is acceptable, does C standard make it
> clear?
http://lwn.net/Articles/233482/
--
Fun things to slip into your budget
Heisenberg Compensator upgrade kit
Friß, Spammer: [email protected]
-
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]
