On Wed, 9 May 2007 11:41:27 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 May 2007, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > Thus, any reliance on type-qualifying an object that represents an atomic > > > or locking primitive on the keyword 'volatile' is misplaced. > > > > arch/foo is generally implementation specific code. > > > > That's true, but what qualifies as an "access" to an object that is > type qualified with the 'volatile' keyword is _implementation_ defined, > meaning the behavior is defined by the compiler and not this new > architecture you're proposing 'volatile' is appropriate for. That's pure > C99. arch/foo almost always supports a single compiler too - gcc. We simply don't support anything else. We use gcc inlines and features extensively. And who cares about such fine detail of C99, did they fix the struct copy bug in ANSI C even ? [1] Alan [1] ANSI C says access to the padding fields of a struct is undefined. ANSI C also says that struct assignment is a memcpy. Therefore struct assignment in ANSI C is a violation of ANSI C... At this point its a lot simpler not to care about other compilers pet insanities or areas of the spec like volatile that are vaguer and less credible than the output of the US congress. - 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/
