Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 08:09:13AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 04:59:12PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
gcc bugzilla bug #33102, for whatever that ends up being worth. ;-)
I had totally forgotten that I'd already filed that bug more
than six years ago until they just closed yours as a duplicate
of mine :)
Good luck in getting it fixed!
Well, just got done re-opening it for the third time. And a local
gcc community member advised me not to give up too easily. But I
must admit that I am impressed with the speed that it was identified
as duplicate.
Should be entertaining! ;-)
Right. ROTFL... volatile actually breaks atomic_t instead of making it
safe. x++ becomes a register load, increment and a register store. Without
volatile we can increment the memory directly. It seems that volatile
requires that the variable is loaded into a register first and then
operated upon. Understandable when you think about volatile being used to
access memory mapped I/O registers where a RMW operation could be
problematic.
So, if we want consistent behavior, we're pretty much screwed unless we use
inline assembler everywhere?
-- Chris
-
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/
