On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 at 19:44, Tiwei Bie <tiwei....@antgroup.com> wrote:
>
> The behavior of gcc and clang differs. Clang's behavior appears to be
> related to the volatile qualifier in arch_spinlock_t:
Ahh. That kind of makes sense.
At the same time, I think clang is being stupid here. Yes, it makes
sense to treat volatile specially in this way - just not for an
initializer.
I realize that initializers can be made to be their own data
structures in modern C (ie taking the address of an initializer and
using the initializer itself as an argument to a function call, for
example), but when an initializer is used to set the value of a
variable, the only real thing there is that variable.
Oh well. The patch certainly looks fine and I obviously already merged
the pull request. It does make me go "I wonder how many other places
clang just generates stupid code due to this".
Linus
