Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
> Because volatile is ill-defined? Or actually, *undefined* (well,
> implementation-defined is as good as that)? It's *so* _vague_,
> one doesn't _feel_ like using it at all!
>
Sorry, that's just utter crap. Linux isn't written in some mythical C
which only exists in standard document, it is written in a particular
subset of GNU C. "volatile" is well enough defined in that context, it
is just frequently misused.
> We already have a complete API containing optimization barriers,
> load/store/full memory barriers. With well-defined and
> well-understood semantics. Just ... _why_ use volatile?
See below.
> It will _always_ work. In fact you can't really say the same for
> volatile. We already assume the compiler _actually_ took some
> pains to stuff meaning into C's (lack of) definition of volatile and
> implement it -- but in what sense, nobody knows (the C standard
> doesn't, so what are we).
It will always work within the context of GNU C.
>> more heavy-handed as it's disabling *all* optimization such as loop
>> invariants across the barrier.
>
> This is a legitimate criticism, I agree.
There you have it.
-hpa
-
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/
