It's not my problem as jhb has volunteered to fix all these. :-)
we just add an entry point for bcopy_volatile() next to that for bcopy. (I called it vbcopy in my suggestion.) bzero has the same thing bzero_volatile() I guess. Though I still feel that it breaks POLA to not be able to use bcopy and bzero. On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 1:27 PM -0800 2/27/02, Julian Elischer wrote: > >There are saveral places (e.g. if_ie.c) where data > >is copied out of a buffer that is shared with the hardware. > > > >The pointer to this is correctly labelled as "volatile", though > >at the time we will copy the data out we know it to be stable. > > Note: "at the time we will copy the data ... we know" > > >A while ago I proposed the following patch: > > > >/* > > * Note: the "volatile" below does not REQUIRE that the argument be > > * volatile, but rather ony says that it is OK to use a volatile * i > > * there. Same for the const. I know a const volatile sounds strange > > * but it only indicates that either is acceptable. > > */ > >void bcopy __P((volatile const void *from, volatile void *to, > > size_t len)); > > This will always allow bcopy to do the copy to or from any volatile > location, even if the call is done at a bad time. Any programmer > calling bcopy should at least get a little flag waved at them if > they are working with volatile arguments. > > How philosophically sickening would it be to create a macro: > > #define bcopy_volatile(x,y) bcopy((casts)x,(casts)y) > > so that you can have cleaner-looking source code, but still have > it so the programmer has to *explicitly* say "Yes, I know I am > dealing with volatile memory here". > > -- > Garance Alistair Drosehn = [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
