On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > Marking volatile I think is out of the question. To start with,
> > volatile creates really poor code (and most of the time we actually
> > do want the code in critical sections to be as tight as possible).
>
> Poor code is better than broken code I would say.
No. A *working*compiler* is better than broken code.
There's no way to use volatile for these things, since it can hit
*anything*. When the compiler generates buggy code, it's buggy code. We
can't add volatiles to every single data structure. We'd be better off
having a million monkeys on crack try to hand-assemble the thing, than
having a totally buggy compiler do it for us.
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/
[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]
