On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 12:34:24AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > >No it's not. We know how big the dummy_lock structure is, and > >so might "know" that it doesn't overlap with something else. > > I guess Alexey point is that the current compiler doesn't notice that. Perhaps. But that's not to say no future compiler won't. r~ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: GCC proposal for "@&q... Linus Torvalds
- Re: GCC proposal for "@&q... Andrea Arcangeli
- Re: spin_lock forgets to clobber memory and... Jamie Lokier
- Re: spin_lock forgets to clobber memory... Andrea Arcangeli
- Re: spin_lock forgets to clobber m... Jamie Lokier
- Re: spin_lock forgets to clobb... Andrea Arcangeli
- Re: spin_lock forgets to clobber m... Juan J. Quintela
- Re: spin_lock forgets to clobber memory... kuznet
- Re: spin_lock forgets to clobber m... Richard Henderson
- Re: spin_lock forgets to clobb... Andrea Arcangeli
- Re: spin_lock forgets to clobb... Richard Henderson
- Re: spin_lock forgets to clobb... Andrea Arcangeli
- Re: spin_lock forgets to clobb... kuznet
- Re: spin_lock forgets to clobber m... Jamie Lokier
- Re: [patch] waitqueue optimization, 2.4.0-test7 Richard Henderson
- Re: [patch] waitqueue optimization, 2.4.0-test7 Andrea Arcangeli