On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:26:06AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 01:05:55PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Alternatively, could we try and talk to our GCC friends to make sure GCC > > doesn't tear loads/stores irrespective of what the C language spec > > allows? > > Interestingly enough, they used to make that guarantee, but removed it > when C11 showed up. Did someone tell them this was a regression and have them fix it? They can't just change things like this. > Me, I would feel better explicitly telling the compiler what I needed. > It is all too easy for bugs to slip in otherwise, especially when the > gcc guys are adding exciting new optimizations. GCC guys (as opposed to the language guys) should be far more amenable to our needs, and I don't think they want to break the kernel any more than we do.
