* H. Peter Anvin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > 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.
Where? I don't ever recall seeing something that defines Gcc's behaviour with volatile on different architectures. I know on some architectures gcc generates different instructions for volatile accesses (e.g. load acquire/store release on IA64); I'd be pleasently surprised if gcc's behaviour was consistent accross architectures. Dave -- -----Open up your eyes, open up your mind, open up your code ------- / Dr. David Alan Gilbert | Running GNU/Linux on Alpha,68K| Happy \ \ gro.gilbert @ treblig.org | MIPS,x86,ARM,SPARC,PPC & HPPA | In Hex / \ _________________________|_____ http://www.treblig.org |_______/ - 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/