Re: Is gcc thread-unsafe?

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> Bart Van Assche writes:
> 
>  > Andrew, do you know whether gcc currently contains any optimization
>  > that interchanges the order of accesses to non-volatile variables
>  > and function calls ?
> 
> It sure does.

Note that doing so is perfectly fine.

But only for local variables that haven't had their addresses taken.

The fact is, those kinds of variables really *are* special. They are 
provably not accessible from any other context, and re-ordering them (or 
doing anything AT ALL to them - the most basic and very important 
optimization is caching them in registers, of course) is always purely an 
internal compiler issue.

But if gcc re-orders functions calls with *other* memory accesses, gcc is 
totally broken. I doubt it does that. It would break on all but the most 
trivial programs, and it would be a clear violation of even standard C.

HOWEVER: the bug that started this thread isn't even "reordering 
accesses", it's *adding* accesses that weren't there (and please don't mix 
this up with "volatile", since volatile is a totally unrelated issue and 
has nothing what-so-ever to do with anything).

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/