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.
Volatile accesses in *code* can be ok, and if we have "atomic_read()"
expand to a "*(volatile int *)&(x)->value", then I'd be ok with that.
But marking data structures volatile just makes the compiler screw up
totally, and makes code for initialization sequences etc much worse.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
