On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 11:08:20AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Friday 10 August 2007 10:21:46 Herbert Xu wrote:
> > Paul E. McKenney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > The compiler is within its rights to read a 32-bit quantity 16 bits at
> > > at time, even on a 32-bit machine. I would be glad to help pummel any
> > > compiler writer that pulls such a dirty trick, but the C standard really
> > > does permit this.
> >
> > Code all over the kernel assumes that 32-bit reads/writes
> > are atomic so while such a compiler might be legal it certainly
> > can't compile Linux.
>
> Yes, the kernel requirements are much stricter than ISO-C. And besides
> it is a heavy user of C extensions anyways. On the other hand some of the
> C99 extensions are not allowed. And then there is sparse, which enforces
> a language which sometimes is quite far from standard C. You could say it is
> written in Linux-C, not ISO C.
Understood. My question is "why do we want the semantics of atomic_read()
and atomic_set() to differ?"
Thanx, Paul
-
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
