Travis Whitaker <pi.boy.tra...@gmail.com> writes: > Hello Haskell Friends, > > Recently I noticed some strange behavior in a program that uses peek/poke > to manipulate memory mapped hardware registers, that smells a lot like > missing volatile semantics to me. It hadn’t occurred to me that peek/poke > might not have volatile semantics (they return an IO, and that IO has to > happen, right?), but naturally once they’re lowered all such bets are off. > This made me wonder: > > - Do we have a type like #Addr whose loads/stores have volatile semantics? > We don't. > - Do we have any primops with volatile semantics at all? > I have in the past wanted to introduce acquire/release accesses in Cmm (instead of the arbitrary barriers that we use today), but I have never considered adding volatile.
The semantics of the {read,write}*Addr# family of primops are a bit
under-specified. However, I think you are right that it would be
reasonable to assume them to have semantics similar to those of
non-atomic access in C (or slightly stronger since we *do* guarantee
that the access will actually reach memory such that it will be visible
to a non-Haskell program eventually).
I'd be interested in knowing more about your application is here. In
general accessing memory mapped registers from user-space requires
extreme care (typically with cooperation from the kernel since you need
write-through physical memory mappings); volatile alone isn't
sufficient. What concretely are you doing?
> - Are there any tricks one could use to get volatile semantics out of
> base’s peek/poke functions?
>
I don't believe so. In your situation I would likely introduce a set of foreign
functions which provides a volatile reads/writes. However, as noted
above, just `volatile` alone won't be sufficient to guarantee robust
access to memory-mapped registers.
> Poking around, I’m afraid the answer to all three of these is “no.” If so,
> I’d be very interested in contributing volatile load/store primops and
> working out some way to make them easily available from Foreign.Storable.
> Does no such thing currently exist or am I missing something?
>
I think the first thing to ask is what you want from your "volatile"
primops. I'd be somewhat reluctant to add a primops for memory mapped IO
since, as noted above, "volatile" is only half of the story and the
other half is highly platform dependent. However, I am happy to discuss.
Cheers,
- Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
