Jerry Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 21:18:25 -0700 (PDT) >> On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Chris Snook wrote:
>> > Some architectures currently do not declare the contents of an atomic_t to >> > be >> > volatile. This causes confusion since atomic_read() might not actually >> > read anything if an optimizing compiler re-uses a value stored in a >> > register, which can break code that loops until something external changes >> > the value of an atomic_t. >> >> I'd be *much* happier with "atomic_read()" doing the "volatile" instead. >> >> The fact is, volatile on data structures is a bug. It's a wart in the C >> language. It shouldn't be used. > > Why? It's a wart! Is it due to unclear C standard on volatile related point? > > Why the *volatile-accesses-in-code* is acceptable, does C standard make it > clear? http://lwn.net/Articles/233482/ -- Fun things to slip into your budget Heisenberg Compensator upgrade kit Friß, Spammer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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/
